Rosebank Oilfield: Government Policy
(1 day, 17 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Government policy on Rosebank oilfield.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. Tomorrow, the Prime Minister will stand in front of world leaders at the COP31 climate summit. He is expected to say that this is a pivotal moment for global climate action. He is right, and that takes me straight to the heart of today’s debate. If the Government are clear that climate change is no longer a distant threat and that fossil fuels are driving climate breakdown, why are they not clear that green-lighting Rosebank, the biggest undeveloped oil and gasfield in the North sea, is a complete dereliction of duty? My constituents are clear about the risks of more fossil fuel extraction.
Carla Denyer
Not at this moment—I will get a bit further in my speech. The risks include more of the heatwaves that killed thousands of people in the UK this summer, the worst drought in 50 years and floods that could hit this winter, driven by a dangerous combination of climate change and what is set to be the most extreme El Niño we have ever seen. Every fraction of a degree of global heating makes the future less safe, and every drop of oil pumped from Rosebank contributes to that less safe future. Today, I call on the Government to make the right choice and reject Rosebank. Let me lay out my case.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
We all want growth but, given that Rosebank is primarily for export and that oil and gas revenues are expected to plummet to nearly zero by 2030, does the hon. Member agree that even the economic case does not stack up?
Carla Denyer
I do agree, and I will be coming to that point in just a moment. First, I will start with the climate and nature case against Rosebank. If it is given the green light, its carbon emissions are projected to total a devasting 254 million tonnes. That is equivalent to 70% of the UK’s entire emissions last year and greater than the combined carbon dioxide emissions of the 73 lowest-emitting countries and territories.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Clapham and Brixton Hill) (Lab)
Does the hon. Member agree that those nations did the least to cause this crisis, but are already paying for it in floods, failed harvests and debt, and that Britain should not hand the global south yet another bill for our choices?
Carla Denyer
I absolutely agree. In fact, it is the human rights and international justice aspects of this that turned me into a climate activist in the first place.
That devastating 254 million tonnes is a climate-wrecking volume of emissions. If Rosebank is allowed, it would keep producing oil until 2052, polluting our atmosphere after the date by which the UK is legally committed to net zero.
Carla Denyer
I will make a little more progress. The International Energy Agency and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are clear: opening new oil and gasfields is incompatible with limiting warming in line with the Paris agreement. This is the key point in this debate: globally, even if we only extract all the oil, gas and coal in existing wells and mines, we will release seven times more emissions than would keep us within 1.5° of warming. That means that there must be no new oil and gas extraction at all.
Douglas Lumsden
Would the hon. Member accept that, if we do not produce our own oil and gas, it is not that we are going to use any less of it, but that we are going to import more oil and gas from other places with a higher carbon footprint?
Carla Denyer
Unfortunately, it sounds as if the hon. Member might be suffering under some misapprehensions about the facts of the case. The fact is that this oil and gas would be sold on international markets, as I will come on to in just a moment.
Warinder Juss
Employment in oil and gas has fallen significantly over the last decade, but the UK is forecast to be reliant on oil and gas until 2050. Does the hon. Lady agree that a just transition requires the Government to do their utmost to create high-quality clean energy jobs as quickly as possible, so that we can not only challenge the climate crisis, but keep our skilled workers in employment?
Carla Denyer
I agree absolutely; it is almost as if the hon. Member has been peeking at my notes. I am now going to plough on, because quite a lot of interventions have predicted something I am about to say.
I have put the climate case against Rosebank, but the economic case is equally powerful. Rosebank will not bring down my constituents’ energy bills, nor anyone else’s. New oil and gas production in the UK will do nothing to affect market price here, which is set internationally and has been driven up by Donald Trump’s war in Iran. As Equinor has confirmed, Rosebank’s oil will be sold on the open market. Hon. Members should not just my word for it: a former Conservative Energy Secretary admitted that new oilfields will do nothing to bring down the price of energy. The current Energy Secretary has said that
“if you care about affordability, North Sea does not solve that problem for you”.
By contrast, renewables are already saving us money. Since the start of the Hormuz crisis, record-high UK wind and solar generation has avoided the need for gas imports worth £5.9 billion. That is what real energy independence looks like. Although I welcome the progress and ambition on renewables that we have seen under this Government, it does not and never will justify the extraction of new fossil fuels. Every day, I am emailed by Bristol Central constituents struggling with the seemingly never-ending affordability crisis, and energy bills are now set to jump by another £276 from January.
Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Lady for securing this debate. Last summer, Monmouthshire saw wildfires, and before those it saw floods. Does the hon. Lady agree that people such as my constituents need more affordable renewable energy to secure their homes—not investment in the vested interests of oil companies?
Carla Denyer
I agree. The Prime Minister has rightly promised action to address the cost of living. To do that, he needs to break the link between fossil fuel prices and electricity prices by getting off oil and gas, rather than deepening our reliance on fossil fuels, when we are precisely in a fossil-fuelled cost of living crisis.
Carla Denyer
I am going to make a bit more progress. Why on earth has the Chancellor been given a veto on new offshore wind projects if they do not lower bills, when he is not applying the same test to decisions about climate-wrecking fossil fuels?
That brings me to jobs. In the last 10 years, the number of jobs supported by the UK oil and gas industry has more than halved, despite the previous Government approving hundreds of licences. The reality is that 93% of viable oil and gas reserves in the UK North sea have already been extracted, so jobs will continue to decline unless we change direction. By investing in renewables industries and helping workers to secure well-paid, unionised jobs in those industries, the Government can build a secure future for workers.
Currently, an offshore wind turbine contains three times as much material from abroad as it does from domestic manufacturers. Public investment in UK manufacturing capacity for offshore wind alone—never mind the other technologies—would generate 10,000 direct and more than 13,000 indirect jobs.
Carla Denyer
I am going to make a bit more progress. Those potential jobs are why, last year, I tabled the Energy and Employment Rights Bill, outlining key steps to future-proof jobs in the energy sector. They are also why I am working alongside trade unions to call for statutory rights to union reps for future-proofing jobs, to create a legal requirement on employers to include trade union reps in workplace planning related to decarbonisation. That, not Rosebank, is how we build a stable, future-facing economy.
The economic case against Rosebank goes to the heart of our tax system. We need to know whether the Government questioned the assumption in the Office for Budget Responsibility’s autumn Budget papers that Rosebank will be approved, and whether the Treasury has a predetermined view. The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero alone must take the decision on Rosebank. Any indication that the Government are relying on it for tax revenues could be considered indirect pressure. Could that risk making the decision unlawful?
In her approval of Jackdaw, the Secretary of State herself concluded that she
“has not been able to form a view in which she has sufficient confidence”
regarding the tax receipts from the gasfield. In other words, the Government do not think that they are going to raise much tax from the gas drilling for which they have just given the go-ahead. The OBR has pointed out that, even with its assumption that Rosebank is approved, the combined effect of the expiry of the windfall tax and the declining nature of the North sea basin means that tax receipts from the oil and gas sector as a whole are projected to be “close to zero” by 2031-32. Compare that with the global damage that would be caused by emissions from Jackdaw and Rosebank, which are estimated to cost between £170 billion and £483 billion, and the £13.3 billion of UK public money that has already been spent, incredibly, on tax breaks for fossil fuel firms between 2019 and 2026. That is enough money to insulate every home in fuel poverty in England, which would be the real way to bring down bills.
Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)
My hon. Friend is making an incredibly powerful case, particularly about the economic importance of investing in renewable energy and the fact that the Rosebank oilfield would not bring down our bills. Does she agree that it was particularly disappointing that, in the recent Budget, the Government cut back on funding for home insulation measures—measures that, alongside renewable energy, are where the Government should be focusing their attention?
Carla Denyer
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. As he and I have said many times, the cheapest energy bills are those that people do not have to pay, because their home is so well insulated that they do not have to buy that energy in the first place.
Carla Denyer
I am beginning to wrap up now.
If Rosebank is fundamentally incompatible with a liveable planet, will not bring down energy bills, will not future-proof North sea jobs and represents a significant drain on public finances, why is it even being considered? Analysis of Government meetings shows that, between July 2024 and June 2026, UK Ministers had 200 meetings with the main firms involved in Rosebank and Jackdaw and their lobbyists—about two a week. The only ones who benefit from more oil and gas are the fossil fuel companies making record profits. Shell, part owner of Rosebank, doubled its global profits in the year from September 2025 to an astounding £8.1 billion. We cannot cave in to its lobbying now.
Green-lighting Rosebank would also risk breaching the Government’s sanctions on illegal Israeli settlements in the west bank. Ithaca Energy, which holds a 20% stake in Rosebank, is controlled by Delek Group. Last year, that group was included in a United Nations database of firms that allegedly provide services or utilities to support illegal settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. That, too, must be a factor in any decision on Rosebank.
As I draw to a close,
“the idea that we will say, ‘Look, there is a climate crisis; this will not make any difference to our energy security; the Energy Secretary says that it will not cut bills; it is not the answer for the jobs of the future; but we will carry on doing it anyway’, is climate vandalism.”—[Official Report, 22 January 2024; Vol. 744, c. 50.]
Those are not my words, but the words of the now Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Ed Miliband). He is completely right. The decision whether to approve the climate-wrecking Rosebank oilfield is a defining moment for this Government and this Parliament. I hope that today’s debate will help to ensure that, when we look back, we can do so with pride at a decision that will protect us all and stop Rosebank in its tracks.
Several hon. Members rose—
Derek Twigg (in the Chair)
Order. It will not have escaped right hon. and hon. Members’ notice that this is a very busy debate. It is unlikely that every Member will get in; however, I am imposing a two-minute time limit. If Members intervene, I may not call them during the debate. I intend to call the Front-Bench speakers at 3.34 pm.
Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer) on securing this debate. I may disagree with her, but it is very valuable that we continue these conversations.
Too often, this debate is framed as a binary choice: people are for oil and gas, or they are for renewables. I spent more than a decade working with renewables businesses before I came to this place, and I can say that that is a false choice. The question is not whether we decarbonise; it is how we do it and who we take with us. Let me be clear: this is not an issue for Aberdeen or even just for Scotland. While in my constituency I have businesses such as TechnipFMC and Oceaneering, which employ hundreds of skilled people in subsea engineering and manufacturing, we are nowhere near the North sea’s front door, and that story is repeated across the country.
We will not decarbonise our economy or remain world leaders in decarbonisation by switching off one industry and hoping that another switches on. The engineers, welders, technicians and businesses—that whole ecosystem—will build floating offshore wind, carbon capture and the grid of the future. Those skills do not sit in a drawer waiting to be used. If the work goes, the skills go, and the capability goes with them. In Fife, we know very well what happens when an industry closes down without a plan. When pits closed, whole communities lost not only their jobs, but the sense of who they were. For communities across the UK, energy is part of their identity and their pride, and it should be part of their future.
The Government took the right decision on Jackdaw, and the Treasury’s own forecasts have assumed that Rosebank would go ahead since at least 2019. Through the energy wealth fund, that revenue can be reinvested in a low-carbon future. Think of a young person, in my constituency or across the country today, deciding whether to start an engineering apprenticeship. For generations, oil and gas has been the front door to that technical career; many who walk through it go on to offshore wind, nuclear, renewables, defence or other industries, but they need to see that that door is open. Close it, and we do not just lose an industry—we lose the next generations of engineers that every other industry depends on.
Douglas Lumsden (Aberdeen South) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your stewardship, Mr Twigg. My constituents will be brutally disappointed with the opening of this debate, and probably with many of the contributions we will hear later. In my constituency, we are proud of our legacy in oil and gas, and we are proud of the jobs. These are good, high-skilled jobs, many of which cannot and will not be replaced by the energy transition, but this is not about jobs just in Aberdeen: as we have heard, thousands of jobs all across the country are supported by continuing oil and gas production. Forcing my constituents out of their jobs and then importing the hydrocarbons they were previously paid to extract is cruel and unnecessary. I do not understand why so many people do not get that argument.
Rosebank is desperately needed. It is needed for the almost 3,500 jobs that depend on it, and more importantly, it is needed as a sign that the North sea is open for business. It is needed for the tens of thousands of supply chain jobs up and down the country. We all know that the North sea is a declining basin—we have heard it already; we get that. It will not last forever, but it would be economic suicide to pay for more imports rather than extract ourselves, with all the jobs and tax revenue that that brings.
Not only does the hon. Member for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer) suggest that we miss out on billions of pounds in tax revenue, which could fund any ideas that she cares to go for, but it is clear that not supporting Rosebank means supporting higher carbon emissions. We know that importing more oil and gas to fuel our country is expensive and more carbon intensive. This is insane. Why are we even considering this? I am sure that many Members in this House would be quite comfortable buying Putin’s oil instead—I say, “No, no, no.” Every barrel that we can produce locally benefits us here.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
Before the Government even consider taking revenue from Rosebank, does the hon. Member think that they should be increasing taxes on the British insurance companies that are currently providing maritime services to the movement of Russian gas?
Douglas Lumsden
I am here to discuss oil and gas, Rosebank and what is most important for my constituents in Aberdeen South. We have the industry; we should just get on and do it. We need Rosebank, and we need more exploration for the benefit of my constituents and of the nation. It is a mystery that this Government and the naysayers, such as the Greens, keep telling us that the North sea is empty, yet our neighbours, the Norwegians, keep drilling. If it is empty, why ban new exploration?
This Government need to approve Rosebank now. We cannot wait any longer. Let us get Britain drilling again.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a great pleasure to serve under you in the Chair, Mr Twigg.
Rosebank will have a direct consequence for climate destruction and human life. It will impact trust in Government and weaken our global standing as leaders in climate protection. It will release 254 million tonnes of carbon dioxide, which is 70% of the current emissions for the whole UK. While previous permissions were granted, the courage of Greenpeace and Uplift in seeking a judicial review caused Government to rightly pause. Now, we have an opportunity to set the future pathway for energy.
As for Rosebank itself, the scale of gas and oil will have real climate impact, but it will also have an impact on human life. We know that, together, Jackdaw and Rosebank will lead to an additional 32,000 heat-related deaths by the end of the century and will have other impacts on the global climate. We know from the Supreme Court judgment that it is so important to assess the future impact of Rosebank, which is why the examination has been so important. It is ultimately a quasi-judicial decision, but it must also take on board the real crisis we face with the climate today.
The submission has been made, and it sits on the Secretary of State’s desk. The question is whether or not the future of our planet matters more than jobs, which could be better invested in the renewable sector for the long term. We need to ensure that we have sustainability for our planet.
Rachael Maskell
I will not. It is really important that we make the right decision today in this debate, but also that the Minister does when he gets the opportunity.
John Milne (Horsham) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg.
We are reaching a point where a decision must be made about Rosebank. There are arguments on either side, but not every argument is equally valid. It is not true that Rosebank will help with energy security; the oil it produces will be overwhelmingly exported. Rather, we should invest in industries that actually do contribute, such as solar and wind. It is not true that Rosebank will reduce energy prices, and it is disappointing that people still put out that message for public consumption when it is quite clearly flat wrong. It is also not true that if we do not drill this oil, the Norwegians will. It is a geologically separate field; if we do not drill there, nobody does.
On the other side of the argument, drilling at Rosebank will not necessarily increase UK use of fossil fuels in absolute terms, although it would, as others have said, add to the total amount of world fossil fuel production. The international COP process is focused on reducing fossil fuel demand and not supply, and perhaps that is a problem. A further argument has been made that, although the state does not own Rosebank oil, it will benefit from taxation, but that is actually a very difficult thing to calculate. Profits can be offset against development and decommissioning costs, and depending on the exact timescale, much of the potential tax revenue might never reach the public purse.
John Milne
I will not. A new taxation regime, the oil and gas revenue levy, begins in 2030. Equinor will make most of its investment while the generous reliefs are switched on, but will generate most of its profit after 2030 when the windfall tax is no longer in effect. I ask the Minister what assumptions are being made regarding tax revenue—the rationale, not just the amount. Does the Minister accept that returns could be greatly reduced by clever accountancy? Can we be sure that Rosebank does not end up as a gigantic tax dodge?
Anna Gelderd (South East Cornwall) (Lab)
Meur ras, Mr Twigg.
The climate and a thriving and resilient economy in which the cost of living works for my constituents are not independent issues; they are two sides of the same coin. These types of political and economic issues are national, international and deeply personal. My granddad Frank never got to know his Dad, a miner who died in an industrial accident deep under the North sea. The history of our national energy policy, from the industrial revolution onwards, is written by the jobs, families and people who built our great fossil-fuelled economy. However, we must now forge a new, practical path—one that includes the current use of oil and gas but ends at the prize of a secure, richer, renewable energy-fuelled Great Britain.
We live in an unprecedented era in which our energy security is more vital than ever and in which jobs and wealth must be protected and economic opportunities seized. On both of those points, Rosebank fails. The UK has sovereign rights to explore resources in the seabed of our continental shelf, but rights over the seabed do not give us sovereignty over the waters above it. Our energy security must consider that point. The biggest economic opportunity lies in renewable energy. I do not want to see us fall behind.
Alice Macdonald
On that point, does my hon. Friend welcome today’s announcement of a £12 billion deal for Vanguard wind farms off the coast of Norfolk, which will help support 2,400 jobs? Does she agree that our focus should be on investing in renewable energy projects and unlocking jobs for constituents such as mine?
Anna Gelderd
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, who is doing great work on behalf of her constituents. I do not want to see the UK fall behind while other countries race towards maximising the economic benefits of the energy transition. Government decisions send important signals to investors. Clear, consistent support gives renewable energy businesses and their supply chains the confidence to invest, expand and create the skilled jobs here in the UK. As the Government, we must provide stability and choose our signals to the financial markets wisely. There are opportunity costs in not doing so.
This weekend I talked to a local resident called Dave, who told me that his renewable energy business, which previously had over 80 orders a month, fell to just five when the then Prime Minister David Cameron indicated that he was minded not to support onshore wind. A few offhand comments—not legislation or Government investment, just signals from a Prime Minister—had a material effect on a thriving local business in Cornwall and on our ability to build the industries that we need for the future. We must do better. We must give renewable energy businesses the confidence to grow. We must give the North sea workforce the support to continue to build a more secure, cleaner and resilient energy future.
Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg.
The SNP’s approach to Scotland’s energy future is grounded in pragmatism, climate responsibility and protecting our industrial workforce. We recognise the inescapable reality that the economy will continue to require oil and gas for years to come as we transition towards net zero. That is why we do not support the Government’s blanket ban on new exploration licences as set out in the Energy Independence Bill.
On major developments such as Rosebank, our position is both principled and rigorous. Decisions cannot be made on the basis of political posturing. They must be assessed individually against statutory emissions targets and climate compatibility. Where domestic production carries a lower emissions footprint than imported fossil fuels, it is entirely rational to consider it while demand remains. For as long as we need oil and gas, it is also ethically questionable to offshore our responsibilities to countries that have poorer environmental controls and, in many cases, very poor employment rights.
Graham Leadbitter
No, I will press on. Scotland’s renewable potential is extraordinary. Our nation leads the world in offshore wind deployment, with renewable generation breaking new records. Yet our constituents are forced to endure the cruel absurdity of living in an energy-rich nation while paying some of the highest energy bills in Europe and suffering widespread fuel poverty.
For half a century, Westminster has treated Scotland’s energy reserves as a Treasury cash cow, squandering vast revenues rather than investing them for the lasting prosperity of our communities. We are determined that the north-east of Scotland, long the oil and gas capital of Europe, must become the net zero capital of the world. Yet our communities are caught between two failed Westminster extremes. Under the Conservatives, 70,000 jobs were lost while they pushed empty “Drill, drill, drill” slogans without building the renewables bridge. Now, Labour is pursuing the opposite extreme—imposing exploration bans and extending a punitive energy profits levy beyond all justification, threatening to repeat the industrial devastation that Thatcher inflicted in Scotland’s heartlands.
Graham Leadbitter
No.
Neither ignoring the cliff edge nor pushing workers straight over it are serious policies—
Al Carns (Birmingham Selly Oak) (Lab)
Before I address what the hon. Member for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer) has passionately talked about, I want to be very clear that I agree that climate change is a security threat. It is something that we must collectively address, and I support the effort to reduce emissions. However, the hon. Member’s narrative worries me. I hear a great deal about what we should stop doing and far less about the economic, ecological and security consequences of those decisions.
Britain emitted 367 million tonnes of greenhouse gases last year. That sounds like a lot, but it represents less than 1% of total global emissions. That is less than 1%. That does not mean that we should abandon our responsibility to reduce them—far from it. But we must be honest about the scale of our contribution, the cost that we ask people to bear up and down the country and whether our policies actually reduce global emissions or simply move them elsewhere.
The reality is that Britain will continue to need oil for decades. That cannot be refuted. Refusing to produce it here does nothing on its own to eliminate that demand—it just does not. It simply increases our reliance on imports, which can carry their own environmental costs. In 2024, Britain spent nearly £52 billion importing oil and petroleum products, leaving us with a net trade deficit of £24 billion. Before Putin invaded Ukraine, Russia supplied around a third of our diesel imports. It could be thought that that experience might have taught us something, yet we are remarkably relaxed about making Britain more dependent on overseas supplies.
Next, there is the export argument, which we have heard a lot. We are repeatedly told that North sea oil is exported as though that settles the argument. Much of it goes to European refineries and returns to Britain as fuel. Commissioned research estimates that around 65% of UK continental shelf crude oil ultimately reaches the British market directly or through European refining. My final point is that before we embark on this journey, we must look people and businesses in the eyes and tell them that we are going to cancel it all.
Derek Twigg (in the Chair)
Excellent; that was right on time. I call Jim Shannon.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. I thank the hon. Member for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer) for setting the scene so well. She knows that she and I have very different opinions, but I respect her views and hope that she will respect mine as well.
The Minister and Government need to get the balance right. Other Members have spoken about that, and I recognise that there is significant demand. The Jackdaw gasfield was approved, as it should be, but we also need 10 billion barrels of oil between now and 2050.
Derek Twigg (in the Chair)
Order. Can the hon. Gentleman speak towards the mic?
Jim Shannon
Excuse me—can I start again? [Laughter.] Only joking.
Businesses, community and charity leaders all recognise the benefit of domestic production. Over 2,000 of them have added their support for Rosebank because of its importance. This oilfield will support hundreds, if not thousands, of jobs. On Monday, the Energy Secretary stressed that affordability is her “overriding objective”. With January expected to bring the biggest rise in bills in four years, action must be taken now to protect energy affordability. Rosebank is part of the solution to stability: by making better use of our own natural resources, we will no longer be largely beholden to geopolitical tensions in the middle east.
Closer to home, in Northern Ireland, energy prices continue to climb—that is why I am here as the MP. Home heating oil prices across Northern Ireland are rising, with 68% of households depending on it, and in my constituency of Strangford and on the Ards peninsula, that figure is 80%. That is why I welcomed last month’s long overdue decision to approve gas production at Jackdaw, which will secure energy supplies for homes and businesses.
Does the Minister agree that strengthening our energy security is of the utmost urgency, and if so, that lessons must be learned from the impact of the Jackdaw delays? Does he also agree that support should be given to the proposed Rosebank oilfield immediately? I urge the Minister and Government: do not delay taking decisive action to reduce our reliance on volatile international energy markets.
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
Like many of my constituents, I am alarmed at the suggestion of even more carbon extraction from the North sea. Like them, I find it hard to believe that we can be considering this after the summer we had. According to researchers, this year’s heatwaves in the UK caused around 4,500 deaths, and the UN is now saying that we are on track for a 2.8° temperature rise.
The lowest-polluting countries are facing the sharpest impact, from Nepal to Bangladesh, Somalia and more. We are staring at climate breakdown, and it seems like madness that we are even having a conversation about more carbon extraction and more oil drilling, or about slashing the electric vehicle quota and unleashing more fossil fuel consumption. All of that is on top of the decisions to approve Jackdaw and cut heat pump subsidies.
Progress has been far too slow, but to reverse the gains that have been made on the UK’s green transition should be unthinkable and will not be forgiven by future generations. At this critical point, I worry that senior politicians have decided that the climate is a foregone conclusion and that we should take a lead from Trump and “drill baby, drill” for some short-term gains—but those gains would be diminishingly small.
Apsana Begum
I will not be giving way.
We know that Rosebank and Jackdaw drilling will have no impact on prices at the pump or on household bills. Short-term gains are quickly overshadowed by the costs of the clean-up bill and climate damage. Rosebank will not provide long-term security for North sea jobs. We know that these projects—Rosebank and Jackdaw—will generate an awful lot of money for Shell and Equinor, so much so that big oil is threatening a capital strike. After hundreds of meetings with fossil fuel lobbyists, I suggest that the Minister should spend less time listening carefully to them and more time listening to constituents like mine who are telling us clearly, “No new oil and gas.”
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. Oil and gas is energy treasure. That is the reality. Oil and gas represents 80%-plus of all the energy that we use currently, and that will be the case for many decades to come—way beyond 2050. Any nation blessed with such energy treasure is trying to extract it as fast as they possibly can, and we should do the same. Quite rightly, the Foreign Secretary has allowed the extraction of oil and gas in the Falkland Islands, so the idea that we would not allow the extraction of oil and gas in the North sea, just outside the wonderful nation of Scotland, is completely bizarre.
The numbers are fantastic: more than £8 billion of GDP; 2,000 jobs during construction; and 500 jobs permanently—those are big, serious numbers.
Richard Tice
I will not give way, if that is okay, because so many want to speak.
That is hundreds and hundreds of jobs directly and indirectly. Frankly, it is financially gross negligence not to extract that energy treasure. That is the simple reality.
The myth is that because the oil is exported, we should not extract it. Guess what? It goes to refineries in Europe, because we were stupid enough to shut down our refineries in the past 20 years, only for some 65% of what is exported to come back to the United Kingdom, as a parliamentary Committee heard recently. We need to take advantage of this treasure.
Richard Tice
I will not give way, because others want to speak.
We have a growth crisis. This is a great opportunity for jobs, activity and investment. It is treasure, and we should extract every last barrel, every last drop.
Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Twigg. I thank the hon. Member for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer) for securing this timely debate. I begin by agreeing with her and acknowledging the facts that our climate is warming, our seas are rising and our landscape is on fire. That is why this Labour Government are pushing ahead with the transition, a move that, like the wildfires in the Cairngorms, is transforming the landscape and marine horizon in front of our eyes.
I am proud to be part of a Labour Government who are committed to renewables. There are 145,000 jobs in renewables, which is more than in the North sea now, at under 21,000.
Torcuil Crichton
I will not be giving way. That is why I support a pragmatic transition, utilising domestic oil production, rather than importing it, and supporting Scottish skills and jobs as we move the workforce across to renewables.
Let us be clear eyed about this: Rosebank, of course, would support jobs—as the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Douglas Lumsden) pointed out—and yes, it would support £24 billion in economic activity and give us tax revenues, but let us not pretend that approving Rosebank will save the North sea, or that its refusal means the end of the North sea story. The North sea is a declining basin, with more than 70,000 jobs gone under the previous Government, and, realistically, jobs will continue to move away from the North sea as the sector is wound down.
Transition, however, is not the same as abandonment. That is why the energy wealth fund announced by the Chancellor and moving jobs across are so important. Contrary to what the hon. Member for Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey (Graham Leadbitter) said, I believe that there should be no new licensing under the Energy Independence Bill. That makes sense. We will need gas for 2045, but without new licences, the reduction in North sea gas production will be 97%, and with new licences, 95%—we are fighting about that 2% in the transition.
We should actually be using the success of the North sea oil and gas sector in the growing renewables sector, and using the skills and supply chains developed over decades to give us the next generation of energy jobs. The worst thing we could do at this time is to switch off the North sea and to be foolhardy in our haste. The transition from oil and gas to clean energy has to be done, but we need to support the energy workforce, our domestic energy security and the transition.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
I am very grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate on behalf of my constituents, who want to see our Government continuing to take the strongest possible approach to the climate emergency and continuing to show leadership on the global stage.
We are debating these issues as communities across our country are gathering to watch the national emergency briefing on the climate emergency. I have already attended a number of screenings of it, and I will attend another in my constituency next week. The briefing has been prepared by climate scientists and it is stark. I have not heard any dissent from this science. We are already in the danger zone of global warming significantly above 1.5°. The climate destabilisation that follows from this level of global warming will bring chaos and hardship to every corner of the globe.
It is already happening. The bleakest statement from the scientists in the film is that our current climate, which is characterised by increasing floods, heatwaves and storms, is as good as we will know in our lifetime.
Helen Hayes
I will not give way, because of the number of people who wish to speak.
Things will inevitably continue to get worse. But the national emergency briefing is also hopeful: it tells the story of places such as Curitiba in Brazil, where city leaders, working intentionally over many decades, have transformed a city of 3.5 million people into a healthy, sustainable and resilient place. It also documents the ways in which investment in carbon reduction and climate adaptation creates jobs, contributes to economic growth, saves lives, improves living standards for everyone, and saves the huge costs of climate emergency responses and disaster recovery.
My constituents care deeply about the climate emergency: they want to see fossil fuels remain in the ground; they want there to be no drilling at Rosebank; and they want to see our Government continuing to lead on the global stage on the energy transition. I urge the Minister to take the views of my constituents and feed them back to the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero as she makes this crucial decision.
Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg.
Today, I urge the Government to take the same common-sense approach to the decision over Rosebank that it applied to the decision over the Jackdaw gasfield. Over its lifetime, Rosebank would contribute an estimated £24 billion to the UK economy and on average it would support over 500 UK-based full-time jobs, with £500 million making its way every year to the Treasury in tax revenue by the end of this Parliament. As someone who spends a lot of time thinking about the threats posed by Russia, Iran and other hostile actors, I believe that a decision to approve Rosebank will help to ensure that oil supplies for Europe are not constrained by the geopolitical choke-points that we have seen driving up the cost of living in recent years.
Let me be absolutely clear that I support the Government’s net zero targets and recognise the importance of bold, practical action on climate change. However, the transition must be delivered in a way that protects jobs, ensures energy security and carries public support.
Luke Akehurst
Sorry, no.
As the UK will continue to consume oil and gas for the foreseeable future, it makes little environmental sense to offshore production to other countries outside Europe, which often have higher emissions and additional transportation costs, only to import the same resources back into Britain. A decision to withhold the approval of Rosebank will not change whether we use oil in the short to medium term. Instead, it will determine whether those resources are produced responsibly here in the UK while we continue to invest in the clean energy industries of the future.
With a progressive Government in power that faces up to the challenge posed by climate change, we could even ensure that the Rosebank project helps to pull us towards our climate obligations and not away from them, through the energy wealth fund, which has already been announced and which will reinvest revenues from oil and gas into renewable energy. A decision to approve Rosebank could therefore move us closer to a clean energy system and create even more jobs on top of those directly linked to the Rosebank field.
Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)
I declare an interest as the chair of the climate and nature crisis caucus.
If we measure both sides of the scales, it is obvious that the costs of pollution from Rosebank vastly outweigh any of its benefits. Those costs will fall on millions of people across the UK who are already struggling to make the sums add up at the end of the month. They will be the ones whose living standards will dive as farmers’ yields fall and food prices soar; they will be the ones whose health will suffer as our weather grows more extreme and the temperatures in our schools, hospitals and workplaces become unbearable; and they will be the ones who will pay the price of flooded homes and businesses.
Moreover, we know that the carbon pollution already in our atmosphere is disrupting the rhythm of England’s seasons right now, and that the stress of climate change is already killing England’s ancient oaks. On Armistice Day, when we remember those who fought and died for our country, it seems that we might be forgetting what inspired and sustained so many of them through the hell that they faced.
We say, “Lest we forget”, but what honour do we pay to the memory of Edward Thomas if we now pursue policies that destroy the “hawthorn-time in Wiltshire” that shaped him into a conscious Englishman? What worth is given to Rupert Brooke’s promise,
“That there’s some corner of a foreign field
That is for ever England”
if we exacerbate the climate-induced drought that is reducing the River Granta, which he loved, to a feeble dribble, such that no future generation can join him
“as swimmers into cleanness leaping”?
What sort of remembrance do we offer Robert Graves if, by extracting the last dregs of fossil fuel profits, we extinguish
“the quiet of an English wood”,
which he longed for in the trenches of 1915?
If those poets were with us now, what would they make of a proposal that threatens to wreck the landscapes, the sights and sounds, and the sense of home that made England so precious to them? That national inheritance is infinitely more valuable than all the revenues Shell and Equinor can promise us.
Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. The wider context of the Rosebank decision is clear and cannot be stated firmly enough. The route to a clean, secure and affordable future lies in renewable energy, not in more drilling of oil and gas. I commend the Government’s work on driving the renewables transition so far, but on Rosebank, I will focus my point on energy security.
If I thought there was an argument that Rosebank would boost our energy security, I would take that seriously. The threats to our wider security and way of life from Russia, Iran and others are severe, and if we fail to keep ourselves safe, we will undermine all the societal, economic and environmental progress that we want to see at home. However, I do not see the energy security case for Rosebank. In the short term, it will not boost our domestic energy production, as 90% of its reserves are oil, not gas, and are likely to be exported. In the long term, it will drive up emissions and increase the very real security threats caused by climate change, from pressure on food systems to increased migration.
Frankly speaking, we are on a hiding to nothing to say that in a global context, the emissions from Rosebank are low and dwarfed by emissions from China or elsewhere. That does not absolve us of our responsibilities to do our bit to protect our planet. I would like to thank the many residents who have been in touch with their concerns ahead of this debate. I will quote one resident who summed it up nicely:
“My main concern is the future we’re leaving for our children. As a mum…I want to feel that we’re actually making progress and doing everything we can to limit the impact of climate change for future generations.”
I worry increasingly about this issue. As we know, the final decision on Rosebank rests with the Secretary of State. She will be privy to legal advice that I have not seen, but for me the question is whether Rosebank supports that transition to a clean, secure and affordable future for ourselves and our planet. I am not convinced that the answer is yes.
Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)
It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer) on securing a debate that is so incredibly important to my constituents.
Drilling at Rosebank would be a mistake for our climate goals and it would not accomplish the very things that many voices arguing in favour of it claim it would. I represent a community where fuel poverty is real; it is real in those rural homes that struggle with insulation and it is real for the families that come to my surgeries and tell me they struggle with the cost of heating oil. I do not believe that drilling at Rosebank would help those families; indeed, it would continue our destructive addiction to fossil fuels at the precise time we should be looking at the geopolitical situation and weaning ourselves off them.
I have not discovered this issue out of political convenience. I have always been a proud member of the environmental movement. My constituency is one where protecting our landscape is paramount. It is the land of Hadrian’s wall, swathes of peatland, the Tyne river and, until a few years ago, the Sycamore Gap tree. My constituents have been proud of the natural beauty of Northumberland for generations. Protecting and conserving what we have should not be a left-wing idea; it should be the oldest idea that we have.
Over the summer, I surveyed my constituents. Hundreds of people took the time to answer and 89% said protecting the environment and fighting climate change is a key priority for them. When I asked whether they would support granting new oil and gas licences or expanding current drilling, 98% said no.
Joe Morris
I am afraid not. I would invite anyone to check Hexham Matters to see whether 98% of my constituents agree on anything else.
Over its lifetime, Rosebank is projected to release emissions equal to about 70% of everything that the UK emits in a year. That is more than the combined emissions of the 73 lowest emitting countries and territories on Earth. Of those 73 countries, some are the poorest in the world and the most exposed to the effects of the climate change, and they are all to be outweighed by a single oil field.
I want us to be the Government who have the courage to say no to Rosebank. We came into office promising no new licences. I am aware of the technical arguments, but the public believe that Rosebank would represent a new licence. Conserving the natural world should not be a preserve of those of us on the left; it never was. However, there is a bloc in this country that wants a cleaner, fairer and more secure future, and it spans all parties and none. It includes the climate campaigners who come to my roundtable, as well as the constituents I meet regularly. I urge the Minister to listen to their voices.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
Governments are defined by their first few months in office. Whatever else they do on the environment, getting Rosebank wrong will shape the green credentials of this Government for years to come. They cannot afford to get this wrong.
Climate change is not just another problem; it is the stage on which the future of humanity will be played out. We are talking about a threat to billions of people, devastated food systems, whole cities becoming uninhabitable, a health emergency and a security nightmare. We are at this danger point because of decades of actions by fossil fuel giants; they knew the dangers of climate change that they were causing and they covered up the truth, all to keep the profits flowing. They continue to spread disinformation, putting profits before all else.
Let us be clear: Rosebank is not compatible with our climate targets—it is dangerous to pretend otherwise. Rosebank will not lower bills. Its oil will be sold on the international market by a private company at market prices, making it billions. People’s bills are higher because we are hooked on oil and gas. Renewables are the cheaper way to break that dependency. The International Energy Agency says that Rosebank will do very little for energy security, and OBR figures show that Rosebank will do almost nothing for tax revenues. Finally, Rosebank is a clear international law risk, because it will aid the flow of profits to a company that is operating in illegal Israeli settlements. For so many reasons, the Government must not approve Rosebank.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Wyre) (Lab)
Over the last year, I have been holding regular MP forums with constituents who have written to me about different themes and issues. One such forum is the local eco-forum that I co-ordinate. At that event, my constituents ensure that their voices are heard, and I have promised to represent them in this Chamber as their local Member of Parliament.
I hope the House will indulge me for the next two minutes if I quote issues that my constituents have raised with Rosebank. First, Gerard from Lancaster said that this summer’s weather made it clear that
“the scale of Rosebank is fundamentally incompatible with any credible pathway to the UK’s climate commitments.”
Frances from Pilling told me:
“We can already see climate breakdown unfolding all around us.”
Barbara from Garstang highlighted:
“We’re already seeing the consequences in repeated and record-breaking heatwaves, devastating floods, failing harvests and rising food and insurance costs.”
Another constituent, Laura, said:
“As a young mother and a researcher whose work focuses on the effects of climate change on disease, I am deeply concerned about the future my daughter will face if we fail to act now.”
The impact on our climate leadership was another theme that emerged, with Michael highlighting that the UN
“has now said the world has failed to hold the Paris agreement pledge of keeping global temperature rises to under 1.5 degrees and that we must cut global emissions by 18% over the next four years to find our way back.”
Oscar from Barnacre told me:
“COP31 provides a huge opportunity that could define this government—to stand on the world stage and announce the rejection of the Rosebank oil field on climate grounds.”
Indeed, that is something I hope we see in the coming days.
The impacts on energy security and energy profiteering were also made clear, with various constituents stressing that this would not lower their bills or offer them the energy security they seek. I urge the Government to listen to my constituents and to recognise how unpopular a decision it would be to go ahead with the Rosebank development.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. At the heart of every major economic and industrial decision should be one simple question: what does this mean for British workers? Will it create good jobs, develop skills, strengthen industry and bring investment to communities that are too often left behind? Will it give the next generation the chance to earn a decent living through skilled work? That is the British worker test, and it is my view that approving Rosebank passes it.
First, on energy security, we cannot surrender domestic production while continuing to consume imported oil and gas. That is not energy independence; it is an industrial retreat that does not pass the British worker test. Secondly, on jobs, Rosebank represents a major investment opportunity that will bring thousands of jobs. Behind those figures lie real people—engineers, welders, electricians, technicians, offshore workers and those employed throughout the supply chain. We cannot rebuild our industrial economy by turning our backs on the industries capable of sustaining it.
Thirdly, it is about our communities. I represent Hartlepool, which is a town with a proud industrial heritage and a future that should be built around engineering, advanced manufacturing and energy. We are pursuing nuclear investment, developing our skills base and working to attract industries that will create opportunities for the future. Jobs in Hartlepool rely on renewables, they rely on nuclear and they rely on oil and gas. That is my frustration with this debate: too often it is about political ideology. Whether it is the representatives of Reform who would destroy renewable jobs, or the Greens who would destroy nuclear jobs and oil and gas jobs, that all means job destruction in my community. Instead, we should do it all. That protects Hartlepool jobs, it protects jobs throughout this country, and it passes the British worker test.
Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
I recognise that we will need oil and gas for decades to come, but I must think about Scotland’s future. I am an environmentalist because I am a realist, and I believe that, when confronted with facts, we must face them. The North Sea Transition Authority projects UK oil production falling from 650,000 barrels a day today to just 60,000 by 2050—a decline of more than 90% within 25 years—and those projections account for discoveries such as Rosebank.
Employment has tracked production downwards. How can I look Scots my age in the eye and tell them Rosebank offers a secure career to raise a family and retire if it is 90% smaller when we retire? I cannot do that. Scotland has been here before. Our transition away from coal devastated communities, including Newcraighall in my constituency. We must not repeat the mistake of marooning workers in a sector ineluctably in decline.
Edinburgh has the energy transition on our doorstep, and I regularly meet constituents on six-figure salaries travelling the world working in renewables. That is where the jobs of Scotland’s future lie. Scotland industrialised early, and although we did not know the effects of climate change then, we know them now. How can we advocate that countries such as Nigeria and Bangladesh reduce their emissions, if Scotland cannot take the steps to do so? Those countries will be the biggest markets for our renewables expertise. I oppose Rosebank because I back Scotland’s energy sector and I want it to thrive for decades to come.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Ind)
Meur ras, Mr Twigg. It is an honour to serve under your chairship. I was proud to be elected on a manifesto that pledged to ban the approval of new oil and gas licences in the North sea. Rosebank would be a futile final bone thrown to the oil industry. The proceeds of Rosebank will not be felt in energy bills, given that the oil will be sold on the international markets with no guarantee that it will be reimported back into the UK and will barely tweak the Treasury’s revenue needle.
Had we set up an energy wealth fund, as the Norwegians did while the UK endured the Thatcher years—and as the Chancellor did in the Budget two weeks ago—the UK would have benefited from these proceeds, but we long sold off control and therefore the ability for Rosebank to benefit our communities.
We should instead be investing in renewables, much in the same way that the National Wealth Fund has invested £1 billion in offshore wind projects announced today. We will create good, productive jobs, bolster energy security and tackle the cost of living. These benefits will be felt prominently in post-industrial communities such as Cornwall, where we have remarkable opportunities in critical minerals, geothermal, floating offshore wind and solar.
But there is another massive decision on the Government’s doorstep today that has the potential to dwarf even Rosebank. If the Government choose to reduce the 2030 target for zero emission vehicles to 50%, with flexibilities extended, that would create a demand for petrol equivalent to double annual Rosebank production. It is really important that Members understand this. Failing to transition to electric vehicles would come not only with a catastrophic environmental cost, but the loss of 127,000 jobs and £70 billion in gross value added. I therefore urge Members to galvanise their opposition against the changes to the ZEV mandate. I would be happy to discuss this with any Members after this debate.
John Whitby (Derbyshire Dales) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve, Mr Twigg. I thank the hon. Member for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer) for securing this important debate. Indeed, no debate is more important than one that discusses the consequences of our heating climate. In the Derbyshire Dales, the climate crisis is no longer something happening elsewhere or something for future generations.
Over the summer, I spoke to anxious residents in Thorpe who were terrified of a wildfire occurring at Dovedale. I spoke to farmers having to use their winter stores to feed their livestock. I have been to six showings of the “People’s Emergency Briefing”, each of which was packed out, showing the level of concern. That concern is reflected by the latest science.
The global temperature has increased by 0.4°C in the last decade alone. We all know that we have unofficially already breached 1.5°C. This summer has made the climate emergency very real. The National Heat Risk Commission estimated that the week commencing 22 June alone cost the economy £1.15 billion in lost output. That could potentially rise to £25 billion a year by 2030.
John Whitby
Sorry, I do not have time.
I accept that Rosebank will not blow our carbon budgets, because much of the 254 million tonnes of carbon emissions will be created in other territories. But the planet does not care where the carbon comes from: it all ends up in the atmosphere or the sea and affects us all. Production of the oil will not make life any cheaper for people; the price will be set by global markets.
The Government made a commitment to no new oil and gas for a very good reason: we must retain our authority and global leadership on the climate. We cannot do this by ourselves.
Samantha Niblett
Does my hon. Friend agree that saying we contribute only 1% to global emissions does not give weight to the size of our influence? We might be small, but we are mighty. If we are flippant about our commitment to renewables and reducing our carbon emissions, that sends an awful message to the rest of the world.
John Whitby
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour.
On Rosebank, we cannot keep kicking this planet-sized can down the road. We need to draw the line somewhere—and I say we draw it here.
Julia Buckley (Shrewsbury) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I thank the hon. Member for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer) for securing this vital debate, because my constituents in regularly flooded Shrewsbury are incredibly concerned about the environmental impact that could come from approving the licence for Rosebank, and several local environmental groups and many residents got in touch to tell me so. People such as Diane, Amy, Hannah, Ian, Jamie and Phil want our Government Ministers to know the strength of feeling against fossil fuels, which belong in the past and not in our future. In fact, Hannah described Labour’s manifesto commitment not to approve any new licences as
“lighting a beacon of hope for a better tomorrow”.
The Government have already approved the Jackdaw gas licence—described as a “balanced decision”—promising to ringfence the £1 billion tax revenue for the energy wealth fund so that we can move forward with our investment in Great British Energy renewable projects to guarantee our national energy security. However, I would urge the Minister and our Secretary of State not to make a decision in favour of Rosebank and not to add further to our climate emergency.
Julia Buckley
I am sorry; I will not.
Instead, can we show our international leadership on the environmental emergency and use the Rosebank moment as an opportunity to reaffirm our commitment to climate resilience, rejecting the oil licence in favour of renewables so that we can uphold our net zero promise and relight that beacon of hope for a better tomorrow?
Derek Twigg (in the Chair)
I hope to call the Lib Dem spokesperson at 3.34 pm. In the meantime, I call Abtisam Mohamed.
Abtisam Mohamed (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Twigg. I will keep my contribution brief.
Like many others, I have signed the StopRosebank pledge on behalf of my constituents in Sheffield Central because we do not have an alternative to survival. There is no moral argument in developing more oilfields as climate breakdown continues. Unless we act now, we will be known as the generation that knowingly ushered in climate catastrophe.
Rosebank fails on every test. It will not benefit taxpayers, who will shoulder the vast majority of the development costs. It will not strengthen our energy security, because most of the oil will be sold on international markets. And it will not reduce energy bills for our constituents, who will remain exposed to volatile fossil fuel prices. I want us to show the courage to invest in renewable energy for a cleaner future, which will allow us to show real climate leadership.
Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. I join everybody else in thanking the hon. Member for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer) for securing this important and timely debate. And it is timely, as we have heard powerfully from Members across the room, and at the multiple people’s emergency briefings in my constituency and across the country following a summer of record-breaking heatwaves, droughts and wildfires.
Martin Wrigley
The summer has been so hot and the storms so bad in my constituency that we are in a state of severe drought and flood warnings at the same time. Can we really consider allowing Rosebank to go ahead and look the next generation in the face?
Pippa Heylings
It is very hard to look my children and the next generation in the eyes as we debate this issue. The Met Office has confirmed that, as a result of burning fossil fuels, we are now living in a changed climate.
The UK’s independent climate advisers acknowledge that the UK will continue to need some oil and gas until it reaches net zero, but they are clear that
“this does not in itself justify the development of new North Sea fields”.
Pippa Heylings
I will not.
Instead, those advisers said that limiting the expansion of fossil fuel production must be a key priority. The Department for Energy Security and Net Zero has set a new objective to support
“a globally standard-setting, 1.5°C and climate science-aligned approach to future oil and gas production.”
Dr Opher
I thank the hon. Member for giving way. Does she agree with me, and about 150 constituents who have written to me, that instead of investing in the exploration of oilfields such as Rosebank, which would cost £4.1 billion—it is a difficult field to explore—and would not lower bills, we should invest £4.1 billion in renewable energy?
Pippa Heylings
It will not surprise the hon. Gentleman that not only did I allow him to speak, but I agree with him.
The decision on Rosebank will be the first major test of the Government’s new approach and the UK’s climate commitments. We need energy security now more than ever in this unstable world. Although we could have properly invested in our transition towards cleaner, cheaper, more efficient energy, successive Governments have instead left the UK in a state of energy insecurity. Because they scrapped zero-carbon homes and insulation schemes, the Conservatives built around 1.6 million homes to lower efficiency standards, costing families in those homes an extra £5 billion in energy bills between 2017 and 2025, and leaving those off-grid exposed to heating oil price spikes, as the hon. Member for Hexham (Joe Morris) described. The Conservatives have pledged that they would continue doing the same if elected.
The sad truth is that Britain has not moved anywhere near fast enough when it comes to reducing the demand for gas and oil in our homes and transport, so we need some North sea oil and gas as part of our energy mix for decades to come. However, accepting that reality does not mean supporting every new oil and gas development. When it comes to Rosebank, we Liberal Democrats are clear that the evidence does not meet rigorous climate tests. As my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (John Milne) stated, around 90% of Rosebank’s reserves are oil, most of which will be sold into the global markets, not reserved for British consumers. Rosebank will not necessarily shield households and businesses from the volatility of global energy prices, and so will not bring down people’s bills in my constituency or other constituencies.
The oil and gas workers who have powered our economy for generations deserve our gratitude and respect, and they are rightly angry that the number of jobs supported by the North sea over the past decade has more than halved, with no transition in place. That is why we Liberal Democrats are calling for the Just Transition Commission to put them at the heart of the new transition.
Ministers must also confront a wider climate issue, as the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) powerfully highlighted. Following the Finch judgment, the full climate impact of oil and gas production can be properly assessed. Rosebank’s projected scope 3 emissions are around seven times greater than those associated with Jackdaw, equivalent to roughly a quarter of the UK’s sixth carbon budget. The Government have stated that the approval of Jackdaw is in line with our legally binding net zero targets, but that is because our net zero targets do not include scope 3 emissions. Will the Government therefore comply with their own policy, following the Finch judgment, that mitigations will be required for scope 3 emissions? None has been set for Jackdaw.
Rather than pursuing projects such as Rosebank, we should focus our efforts on accelerating the transition to clean, home-grown energy and to electrification, so that we can use up all this good, clean energy. Will the Minister therefore support the Liberal Democrats’ calls for a national electrification strategy?
This debate is about the choices we make for our energy future. Rosebank will not lower bills, it raises serious questions about tax revenues, it will not increase our energy security, and it will not save the North sea—but it will wreck our climate.
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I thank the hon. Member for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer) for securing the debate.
I start by paying my respects to Sir Jim Milne, whose death at 85 was announced today. Sir Jim was a giant of the oil and gas sector. Born and raised in Aberdeen, he went on to be one of the north-east’s most renowned energy sector entrepreneurs. My condolences, and I am sure those of many others, go to Sir Jim’s family, friends and many colleagues, who will miss him greatly.
This debate is not about whether we need oil and gas. We do, and we will for decades. It is about where the oil and gas we need comes from, and whether we get the economic benefits from producing it ourselves. While we need oil and gas, and while we have oil and gas, we should be prioritising using our own oil and gas. But—madly—we are not.
When the Government permitted Jackdaw a few weeks ago, they said it would be good for jobs, good for business and good for energy security—and they were right. But those same arguments apply for Rosebank. As my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Douglas Lumsden) and others have highlighted, Rosebank will support thousands of jobs, directly and in the supply chain. It could deliver tens of billions of gross added value to our economy and around half a billion pounds annually in direct tax revenues. No serious Government would be prepared to walk away from that.
Rosebank is primarily an oilfield, but it contains a notable amount of gas. Although Jackdaw is expected to produce the equivalent of 6% of the UK’s gas needs, Rosebank could contribute a further 4%, and the Government permitted Jackdaw on the basis that it was good for gas supplies this winter and good for energy security. The same reasons therefore apply to Rosebank.
One of the principal arguments made against Rosebank in this debate is that the oil will be exported, so let us deal with that face on. About 90% of the crude oil that we extract in UK waters is refined in the UK or exported to Europe, with approximately 65% of that, as we have heard, returning to the UK as refined products—products that we need every day. The extraction of oil from the UK is good for our energy security. It is far better than importing oil from the other side of the world, where supply is vulnerable to disruption at choke points such as the strait of Hormuz.
Let us be completely honest: the export argument is incredibly superficial. We are an exporting nation; we are the fourth largest exporter in the world, and trade accounts for 60% of our GDP, so why has that suddenly become an argument against Rosebank? Those who are concerned about the oil being exported should ask themselves why the UK has lost a third of our refining capacity in the last two years and whether they will support our proposals to scrap carbon taxes and restore the competitiveness of domestic refineries—but, sadly, I doubt that many will.
The reality is that the alternative to not producing our own oil and gas here is not using less; rather, it is importing more. Those imports are more carbon intensive, extracted under different standards and shipped miles around the world to get here. So why are we deliberately replacing domestic production with more high-emission imports? That is the choice that those opposing Rosebank in this debate are making.
Cat Eccles (Stourbridge) (Lab)
Does the hon. Lady recognise that any oil extracted from Rosebank would have to be exported to be refined? We do not have the refining capacity, as she just mentioned, so it would represent more carbon emissions, increased costs and very little coming back to us.
Harriet Cross
We are exporting to Europe now and bringing it back—Rotterdam is a lot closer than, for example, Canada, Nigeria or Algeria, where we are importing a lot of our oil from.
There are some questions on the financial forecasts that I would like the Minister to address. Last year, the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury confirmed that the OBR’s forecasts do not provide a breakdown of individual fields, yet Rosebank was specifically referenced in this year’s forecast accompanying the Budget. Can the Minister explain why? Was the OBR given assurances by the Government that the field would be permitted? If Rosebank does not proceed, will the forecast need to be revised?
I would also like the Minister to clarify another inconsistency. Last month, the Foreign Secretary signed off the Sea Lion oilfield in the Falklands, which is twice the size of Rosebank. Both Sea Lion and Rosebank have published their scope-free calculations, so why has one been allowed while the other is still stuck in limbo? Why are the Government supporting jobs and growth in Port Stanley, but not in Aberdeen?
The debate on Rosebank should not be about climate change, emissions or use of oil and gas, because not permitting Rosebank will not mean that our demand for oil and gas disappears overnight. This is a debate about jobs, business and UK industry. Businesses need confidence, and oil and gas operators and supply chains are no different, yet the Government are sending completely contradictory signals. One minute, they recognise the importance of domestic production and jobs by permitting Jackdaw; the next, they continue to delay Rosebank and press ahead with their plan to ban new oil and gas licences.
It should not even need saying, but sadly it does: no business—oil and gas or otherwise—is obligated to invest in the UK. Firms can put their money, employ people, grow their businesses and produce their energy elsewhere, and increasingly they are choosing to do so. That is bad in so many ways for the UK—there is no plainer way of saying it. The Government are pushing investment abroad, driving down production and with it our energy security, sacrificing tens of thousands of jobs and skills that have taken more than half a century to develop, and—knowingly and deliberately—making us increasingly reliant on more carbon-intensive imports, precisely when we have seen how fragile international supply chains are.
Olivia Blake
Between 21 and 28 June this year—just eight days—there were 2,124 heat-associated deaths, which is 620 more deaths in one week alone than in the whole summer of 2025. How many health risks or deaths are needed before the Opposition get back around the table and rejoin the consensus that action on climate is not only critical, but necessary, and not a nice-to-have?
Harriet Cross
The oil and gas sector is much more than just Jackdaw or Rosebank. This is an industry that employs over 100,000 people and supports a supply chain that is so important to the roll-out of renewables, nuclear or other defence and energy technologies. It is a sector that the UK cannot do without, so we really need to look at the way in which it is undermined, talked down and seemingly penalised by politicians and the public when they do not believe that we need oil and gas, or believe that we can keep going as we are with oil and gas.
Can the Minister please address how any credible Government can justify legislation to ban oil and gas licences when we need it, have it and will otherwise just be importing it? It will make us weaker, it will make our economy poorer and it will make too many people unemployed. That is the choice being made by this Government, and it is a choice that they are making through the Energy Independence Bill. They must know, deep down, that it is the wrong choice for the UK.
The Minister for Energy (Michael Shanks)
Thank you for your expert chairing and timekeeping in this debate, Mr Twigg. I thank most Members for returning to hear the closing speeches, I thank the hon. Member for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer) for securing the debate, and I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for their participation.
I echo the comments of the shadow Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross), about Sir Jim Milne. He was a titan of industry in Aberdeen and was the founder of the Balmoral Group, which is a good example of what we are talking about today: the group was largely set up in oil and gas, but is increasingly doing work in renewables. My thoughts are with his family.
I want to be clear at the outset about one thing, which may disappoint many Members present. Rosebank is subject to an ongoing regulatory process. In due course, the Secretary of State for Energy has to decide whether or not to agree the grant of that consent. If she decides to do so, the North Sea Transition Authority then has to make the final decision. The environmental effect of the project will be considered and weighed alongside other relevant considerations in reaching a decision, including the potential advantages of the project proceeding. I stress that this Government will not make decisions for this country that are not compatible with our climate obligations, but I cannot and will not undermine the regulatory process that is currently under way by discussing the merits or demerits of the Rosebank project today.
However, I want to pick up some of the more general issues that have been raised in the debate. Of course, consideration of the Rosebank decision follows the decision taken by the Energy Secretary to approve the Jackdaw gasfield just a few weeks ago. The Jackdaw decision will support the country’s energy security, protecting hundreds of jobs and adding an estimated £2.9 billion to the UK economy; the decision document outlines more details on that. The decision was fully in line with our climate commitments, and we expect that in the coming days gas will start to flow from the field to meet demand right across Britain.
I want to set out once again the Government’s wider energy, North sea and climate policy. I will begin where the hon. Member for Bristol Central began: on climate. She is right to say that it is imperative that we tackle the climate crisis. The heatwaves, droughts and extreme weather events that are becoming all too frequent are a reminder to people right across this country that climate change is not some future, theoretical threat, but a very present reality that we are living through.
This Government are absolutely committed to tackling the climate crisis, supporting bill payers and bolstering our energy security by moving to the clean, home-grown energy system that we need and that we control. First, the recent heatwaves and extreme weather events that we have seen demonstrate why this is of critical importance, and that we must pick up the pace in the transition to clean energy. Secondly, recent rises to the energy price cap have largely been caused by the war in Iran, showing that we have to move off the ruinous reliance on global fossil fuel markets that we can never control.
The hon. Member and others rightly pointed out that new drilling in the North sea will not take a penny off bills, and we should be honest about that. Producing the energy that we need at home is vital to moving away from fossil fuel dependence, and the transition to clean energy remains a central priority for this Government. However, we have always been clear that the UK will still require oil and gas as part of our energy mix for decades to come, even on our path to net zero.
It is a basic truth, which we must be honest about, that until we increase our electrification and move away from a reliance on fossil fuels, we will still require them to heat homes, power the country and power industry, but it is right that we take a pragmatic approach. In short, we are not a turn-off-the-taps Government, as our critics accuse us of being, but nor can we justifiably be a drill-every-last-drop Government. We have to manage the transition and build for our energy needs of the future as quickly as possible, and that is baked into the legally binding climate commitments that we have in order to reach net zero by 2050.
Just last week, we introduced the Energy Independence Bill to Parliament, making good on our commitment to introduce legislation to end new exploration licences. We will be the first major G7 producer country to take that step, making sure that we signal a commitment to the global 1.5°C climate goal and demonstrating global climate leadership at a hugely important moment for the world. Furthermore, North sea oil and gas production is already in natural decline. Production in 2025 was 75% lower than in peak years. Further licensing will not reverse that natural decline or change the UK’s status as a net importer of oil and gas. It is a basic fact that, while oil and gas will continue to play an important role in our energy system for decades to come, that has to be alongside our move, as quickly as possible, to the deployment of renewable, new nuclear and other low-carbon technologies.
Richard Tice
If we are the only G7 country to ban the drilling of new oil and gasfields, does the Minister think that other G7 countries will follow us, or does he think that they will laugh at our naive stupidity?
Michael Shanks
First, let me be very clear, because there has been a lot of confusion on this: new production from the North sea is not the same as new exploration licences. We have been very clear on that. Secondly, if we look at the history of the Climate Change Act 2008, for example, it has driven a global consensus to action on climate change. Thirdly, the hon. Gentleman rightly talks about the role that Britain should play in leading in the world, and then retreats at the very moment when leadership is important. This is a moment to stand up and fight for Britain’s influence in the world. I am very proud that we are there at COP and in other places trying to encourage the world in this transition. I hope that he would do likewise.
Michael Shanks
Also in the Energy Independence Bill is a commitment to support the management of existing fields by introducing transitional energy certificates. Those will enable some oil and gas production in already explored areas that are near licensed fields linked by a tie-back. At its heart, this is about taking a pragmatic approach to the North sea, providing long-term stability, maintaining jobs and ensuring that the sector continues to make an important contribution to the UK economy. I am sorry that the SNP seems to have changed its position from supporting that exact climate-leading position. I am not quite sure what its position is from one week to another, but I am sure that when this much-vaunted energy strategy is published at some point—we have only been waiting three years—we will know what the SNP’s real position on this is.
Many right hon. and hon. Members, including my hon. Friends the Members for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie) and for Hartlepool (Mr Brash), made powerful comments about the importance of jobs being at the heart of this transition. My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and Dollar rightly made the point that we need an energy mix, which means not “or” but “and”: having oil and gas alongside the push to renewables as quickly as possible. Those jobs are critical to what we need to do in the energy transition, and we have to hold on to them in the UK.
We have been ambitious about the number of clean energy jobs that we can deploy, tripling them in Scotland and at least doubling them in Wales, Northern Ireland and almost every region of England, supporting hundreds of thousands of jobs across the UK by the end of the decade. These are not jobs arriving at some point in the future. Sumitomo opened the first UK high-voltage direct current subsea cable factory with more than 200 jobs; more than 1,500 jobs have been created in the electricity network sector in Scotland; and today we saw two new projects at Vanguard East and Vanguard West, with 2,400 jobs, as well as new jobs from SSE investment in Berwick Bank. These jobs are being created right now in communities right across the country, and we need to support even more of that investment in clean energy into the future.
A number of points have been raised today about the either/or choice between oil and gas and our move to renewables. I want to be clear that our pathway must be towards the deployment, as quickly as possible, of clean power right across the country. Every single day we remain exposed to fossil fuel markets is a day our constituents pay the price in their bills—and in a very uncertain world, we no longer have the energy security on which we once relied.
The long-term future of this country does not lie in fossil fuels from the North sea. The Government seek to make decisions that take a genuinely pragmatic view of the coming decades, in which we will require oil and gas in our energy mix, and ensure that we get as much economic advantage as possible. Renewables and nuclear is the economic opportunity of the 21st century. It is also a route to protecting bill payers and energy security and to meeting our hugely important climate commitments. Regardless of what decision the Energy Secretary makes on Rosebank, that transition will remain central to this Government’s objectives.
Since we came into office two and a half years ago, we have consented enough clean energy to power more than 20 million homes. We have kicked off a new golden age of nuclear. Some £110 billion of clean energy investment has flowed into clean energy industries. We have saved millions of pounds every single day on oil and gas purchases that we no longer required, as the strait of Hormuz closed, because we could rely on home-grown, secure power here in the UK. I am proud of that record. There is much, much more to do and we are absolutely determined to do it.
Carla Denyer
I thank the Minister, the shadow Minister, the Lib Dem spokesperson and all colleagues who have contributed. It is heartening, frankly, to see so many of us across the House united in opposition to new oil and gas.
I absolutely hear the concern that some Members have raised about their constituents’ jobs, but the hon. Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh (Chris Murray)—not my constituency neighbour, but my neighbour in the room today—answered those points very clearly when he pointed out that jobs in the North sea are in terminal and steep decline and that we will lose 90% of them in the next 25 years, whether or not Rosebank is granted. Surely the best thing we can do for those workers is to ensure that they are supported with a fully funded transition support programme like the one I proposed in my energy jobs Bill.
I thank the hon. Member for Derbyshire Dales (John Whitby), who cut through our arguments over exports and imports by reminding us that the planet does not care where the carbon emissions come from. I thank the many hon. Members who brought to the fore the stark impacts of the climate crisis falling on their constituents right now—including the hon. Members for York Central (Rachael Maskell) and for Sheffield Hallam (Olivia Blake), who talked about heat deaths this summer. I have been struck by the huge passion and eloquence in the room. I also thank the thousands of people who have written to their MP ahead of today’s debate. I pay tribute to Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, Uplift, Zero Hour and others who help to make sure that we MPs understand the public’s strength of feeling on the issue.
Having covered the economic and climate cases in my opening speech, I will close with just a few words about the political case against Rosebank. Today’s debate has happened in the context of a political situation in the UK in which climate deniers and delayers on the hard right are trying to discredit climate action. Perhaps that is because they are out of touch; perhaps it is because they do not actually care all that much for the communities that they claim to represent; perhaps it is because they are bankrolled by fossil fuel interests. They push a narrative that is as misleading as it is dangerous. Sadly, we have seen it take hold, especially the misconceived idea that climate action is unpopular with voters and that rowing back on climate commitments is a winning strategy, as the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) and I fear may be about to happen on electric vehicle targets.
The evidence simply does not bear out that idea. The UK public overwhelmingly support strong climate action. If we retreat from that truth, and from the truth of the climate science, the results will be disastrous. We cannot in good conscience look the other way. We must do everything possible to prevent the go-ahead being given to this action of climate vandalism. Once again, Mr Twigg, I thank you, the Minister and all colleagues who joined the debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered Government policy on Rosebank oilfield.