Rosebank Oilfield: Government Policy
Carla Denyer Excerpts(3 days, 5 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read 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—
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.
Jackdaw Gasfield
Carla Denyer Excerpts(3 weeks, 3 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Michael Shanks
My hon. Friend is a great champion for making sure that the transition has workers at its heart, both in his constituency and across Scotland. The developer estimates that there will be 27 direct jobs on the project, which is all that we are able to take into account with regard to the decision that I can talk about today. Of course, a significant number of jobs in oil and gas come from the wider impacts on the supply chain—things such as travel to and from offshore rigs and wider jobs in the north-east of Scotland—and jobs that might otherwise have been lost are also safeguarded. It is important to look at both sides.
On the question of jobs, I have always been really clear that we cannot just look at one side of a balance sheet and the jobs being lost. Energy transition means people moving from one part of an industry to another. We should not just look at jobs being lost in one area without following through to where those jobs end up, whether it is in other parts of the energy industry, in nuclear, in defence or in advanced manufacturing. One of the things we will launch soon is the future jobs service, which will support workers all the way through that process, giving them the necessary retraining so they can take up the opportunities in the future. That is how we will keep the workforce delivering in energy in Scotland.
Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)
Drilling at Jackdaw is an act of climate vandalism. As we have heard, it will not bring down bills and it will create only 27 jobs. Today’s announcement also reiterated the Government’s support for so-called tiebacks, which are a dodge to allow yet more drilling without new licences. Does the Minister not recognise the UN’s countless warnings that we must leave all new fossil fuels in the ground? Will he admit that allowing both Jackdaw and new tiebacks is utterly at odds with the climate science?
Michael Shanks
No, that is where we fundamentally disagree. We agree on the need to tackle the climate crisis, but our response has to be based in reality. The reality is that however much I want us to be able to get off fossil fuels tomorrow, that is not going to happen. We have to build the infrastructure that helps us get to that place. I am afraid that the Greens oppose the very infrastructure—they oppose wind farms, they oppose pylons, they oppose solar farms, they oppose nuclear—that gets us off fossil fuels, then they come here and complain that we are reliant on fossil fuels for longer than we have to be. They are the problem in building the transition that we need.
I am glad to see the hon. Lady, because the Greens very rarely turn up to energy debates in this House. Across the country, so-called Green politicians have stopped renewable energy projects getting off the ground. It is always, “Not here, somewhere else,” or, “Not today, some other time.” The time to build is now and they have to get behind it if they want us to get off fossil fuels.
Oil and Gas
Carla Denyer Excerpts(7 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)
There is simply no case for opening new oil and gas wells in the North sea, for approving Rosebank and Jackdaw, or for removing the windfall tax from oil and gas companies. It is inaccurate, irresponsible and immoral for the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho), to suggest otherwise in her motion. Expanding North sea drilling will do nothing to support UK energy security or jobs, as the Lib Dem spokesperson—the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Pippa Heylings)—and the right hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) laid out very clearly in their speeches.
Carla Denyer
Those Members answered the challenges from the shadow Secretary of State, so I will move on, given the limit on time.
Given that the measures proposed in the motion will not secure our energy supply, protect jobs or bring down bills, what will drilling more oil and gas from the North sea do? It will undo so much progress we have made in cutting greenhouse gas emissions. We are proud to have ended polluting coal power in the UK—indeed, I thought the shadow Secretary of State was proud of that—but allowing Rosebank would be the equivalent of running 56 coal-fired power stations for a year, undoing all that good work. Drilling more oil and gas from the North sea will also make some people a lot of money, including those on the Reform and Conservative Benches who take dirty money from fossil fuel donors.
Carla Denyer
No, I will not, thank you—I will carry on. [Interruption.] Fine, I will give way.
Claire Coutinho
I thank the hon. Lady for giving way. Could she explain why the biggest advocates for climate transition in this country—RenewableUK, Greg Jackson from Octopus and the chair of Great British Energy—say that she is wrong?
Claire Coutinho
They say that the hon. Lady’s position on the North sea is wrong, and that we should keep drilling there.
Carla Denyer
My reliance is on the evidence, which shows that 93% of recoverable oil and gas in the British parts of the North sea has already been extracted. Whatever does remain will be sold on the international market to the highest bidder, as many Members have already pointed out. If the proposals in the shadow Secretary of State’s motion were implemented, they would do nothing for energy security and nothing for jobs.
Carla Denyer
No, I will not. I will continue for now.
What the shadow Secretary of State’s motion would achieve is the raising of a lot of money. When war inflates oil and gas prices, fossil fuel bosses cash in. Just five companies made nearly half a trillion dollars in the years after the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Of course, those obscene profits should be taxed through the energy profits levy, because nobody should be cashing in on conflict. Again, I draw your attention, Madam Deputy Speaker, and the attention of those who may be watching from home, to the proportion of donations from fossil fuel donors that go to certain politicians in this Chamber. The Chancellor said earlier today that she would crack down on price-gouging and profiteering, so I hope that this work will maintain the principles of the windfall tax in whatever shape it comes.
The Government have done good work in driving forward clean energy and banning new oil and gas licences, and I desperately urge them not to backtrack by approving Rosebank, although I understand that they will not be able to comment on that today. I am also deeply concerned about the fact that, despite officially banning new oil and gas licences, the Government are creating a whopping loophole by introducing the transitional energy certificates, aka tiebacks. This is allowing new drilling at a new site on a technicality, because it involves drilling a new well but, rather than installing a new rig on top of it, attaching it to an existing rig with a very long hose, so it is technically not “new”. Opening up new oil and gas wells now is indefensible when we know that every drop of oil and gas burned puts our future further at risk, so I cannot support a Government amendment that “welcomes” these tiebacks. I ask Ministers to assure me that, at the very least, scope 3 emissions will be considered when the Government are deciding whether to grant the transitional energy certificates.
Committing to renewable energy means change, and change can be unsettling, but if it is done right, the Government can ensure that it pays off for everyone. I have been campaigning for an energy jobs guarantee to support workers who are currently employed in the oil and gas sector to move into jobs in the green sectors. That could be done by ending the £2.7 billion a year in subsidies that the Chancellor hands the fossil fuel industry in tax breaks, and using that valuable public money to back workers rather than propping up an industry that is in terminal decline. Our dependence on oil and gas is making us poorer—that much is clear—and it is making oil companies richer. There is no future in fossil fuels, so I hope that the Ministers will give no ground to the reckless statements put forward today.
Climate Change
Carla Denyer Excerpts(7 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)
I thank the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Luke Murphy), my fellow member of the all-party parliamentary group on climate change, for securing this debate. The climate and nature emergencies are the most pressing issue of our time. They go to the heart of every area of Government, and we ignore or sideline them at our peril. A suppressed national security assessment report, partly released in January in response to a freedom of information request, warns:
“Every critical ecosystem is on a pathway to collapse”,
threatening UK national security and prosperity. Let us give that a moment to sink in. The first job of any Government is to keep their citizens safe, yet there is a yawning gulf between climate reality as recognised in that national security report and the actions that the Government are undertaking.
As we have heard, ambitious action now makes economic sense, too. Failing to tackle the climate and nature crises will cost far more in the long term than investing properly now. The Climate Change Committee, the Government’s own specialist advisers, recently crunched the numbers and worked out that for every pound spent on reaching net zero, the benefits outweigh the costs up to fourfold. That is a good return on investment. Crucially, the Climate Change Committee recognises that the benefits of climate action will be felt in all areas of our lives. Warm homes and better public transport will have huge benefits for our health and wellbeing, and will save the NHS money, too. The health service spends £895 million a year just as a result of cold and damp homes. While the Government are grasping the big picture in some areas, such as growing clean energy, for example, all too often that is not being done in a joined-up way. It does not feel like they are aiming for the massive social and environmental wins that acting boldly and thinking genuinely long-term could secure.
Last year, the Chancellor scrapped the energy company obligation scheme in the autumn Budget. It required energy companies to pay into programmes that cut fuel poverty. The impact of that cut falls not only on the 8.9 million households classed as fuel poor, but on jobs. The Installation Assurance Authority Federation, a leading representative body in the retrofit sector, found that a staggering 12,100 skilled professionals have been made redundant since the end of the ECO scheme was announced in the Chancellor’s Budget. A further 79,000-plus may be made redundant within the next 12 months. Such fragmented policy making, where a gap is left between an old scheme and a new scheme, puts jobs at risk and undermines ambitions on warm homes.
I acknowledge the commitment of the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, and of the Minister, to this agenda. I also acknowledge the degree to which they appear sometimes to be thwarted by the Treasury and others that seem singularly incapable of grasping that building a strong, resilient economy will be an impossibility inside an environment going haywire. They also seem to be thwarted by those who seem unwilling to understand that delaying action and an overreliance on techno fixes, such as carbon capture and storage, are paving the way for a cliff edge of social chaos and economic freefall when we should be planning for an orderly, fair, controlled transition.
Continuing to subsidise the fossil fuel industry is downright dangerous when the extraction and burning of fossil fuels is still the main driver of global warming. Burning the fossil fuels at the proposed Rosebank oil field would release more than the combined annual emissions of all 28 low-income countries globally. That is all without any evidence that that oil would bring down costs at home, because prices are set on the global market. Rather than propping up the oil and gas giants, I have been calling on the Chancellor to end the £2.7 billion of tax breaks given every year to fossil fuel companies. Instead she should fund a jobs guarantee to support workers currently employed in oil and gas to move into new green jobs.
Climate adaptation must become much more prominent, too. The Government’s climate watchdog has warned us that preparedness for extreme weather in this country is disjointed and piecemeal, and that has consequences for all our constituents, for public services and for the economy. That brings me full circle back to my opening point: the climate emergency has ramifications for every single Department and every aspect of all our constituents’ lives. That is why there was such a large appetite for the climate emergency declaration that I pioneered as a councillor in Bristol in 2018. After adopting my climate emergency declaration, Bristol ramped up its ambitions, and the idea has since spread across the UK and internationally. It shows the public’s appetite to go further and faster to protect our planet for future generations. While recognising the good work done so far, we still need vastly more ambition across government. No stone can be left unturned if we want to operate within safe climate limits.
Carla Denyer
I am just coming to an end.
We must leave no stone unturned, whether it is housing standards, taxation, jobs, transport, energy, defence or food. That is my main message today, and I hope the Government are open to hearing it. It is important that we look at climate change across every single Department, because that is how we will build a safer, more positive, more equal and happier country together.
Harriet Cross
I do not know whether there has been a misunderstanding of the title of the debate—it is on climate change, not the costs of bills. For climate change, we are looking at emissions; if we are focusing on emissions, we are focusing on where the carbon is produced. There is less carbon intensity in our domestic oil and gas than in imported oil and gas. I know that is not the message that the hon. Lady or others want to hear, but those are the facts.
Being wedded to domestic emissions targets while ignoring emissions produced elsewhere is causing the deindustrialisation we are seeing across the UK. Businesses in ceramics, refining, petrochemicals, oil and gas and many more industries are packing up and leaving the UK, not because their products are needed less, but because they are unable to sustain themselves here under the weight of industrial energy prices and carbon taxes.
Harriet Cross
I will not. I have taken a lot of interventions, and there is not a huge amount of time—I want to wrap up.
The targets of the Climate Change Act are forcing the UK to make decisions through the lens of emissions, not what is best for industry, electricity costs, growth, prosperity or jobs. That is why it is right that the Conservatives have committed to repealing it. The carbon tax imposed on our industry through the emissions trading scheme has also made it significantly harder for energy-intensive industries to do business in the UK. It increases costs for consumers and makes our industries less competitive.
The illogical way in which we consider domestic emissions while ignoring global emissions further undermines UK industries. Carbon leakage—exporting production, and therefore emissions, abroad—has become a convenient way for the Government to reach their emissions targets at the cost of vital UK industries. We are offshoring our industries and losing jobs, skills, taxes and investment just to import products at huge cost on huge, diesel-chugging container ships from across the world from countries that still use coal power. It is a complete contradiction of what the Government say their emissions ambitions are.
The UK has already done a lot—more than many other countries—to reduce emissions, but that cannot and must not be at any cost. From our electricity prices to the North sea, traditional industries to AI, the Secretary of State’s idealistic approach to energy policy, which focuses primarily on domestic carbon emissions, is impoverishing Britain for no benefit to global emissions.
I once again thank the hon. Member for Basingstoke for securing today’s debate. To conclude, I ask the Minister the following three questions: does she recognise the incoherence in the Government’s determination to shut down North sea production just to increase reliance on more carbon-intensive imports? When will the Government make a decision on Jackdaw and Rosebank? Will the Government adopt our plan to cut the carbon tax and adopt our cheap power plan, immediately stripping 20% off household and business electricity costs?
Oral Answers to Questions
Carla Denyer Excerpts(9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ed Miliband
It sounds really exciting, and one of us will visit.
Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)
Michael Shanks
Of course, all projects that are consented and licensed have to follow the law, and the North Sea Transition Authority as a regulator makes that happen. I will not comment on projects that are currently going through the consenting process.
Warm Homes Plan
Carla Denyer Excerpts(9 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend makes a really important point about the fragility of consumer confidence. We have to support it. The point of the oversight group that the Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, my hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde and Renfrewshire West will chair is to make sure that we do as much as we can to support good ECO suppliers.
Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)
I warmly welcome the new minimum energy efficiency standards for privately rented homes in the long-awaited warm homes plan, but will the Secretary of State lay out how he will ensure that landlords do not simply pass on to renters the costs of meeting those standards? Will he perhaps ask his colleague the Housing Secretary to introduce rent controls to ensure that renters can actually afford to rent these new warm homes?
Ed Miliband
I am not going to do that, but what I will say to the hon. Lady is that lots of landlords already meet the standards. Secondly, we want to provide some help for landlords to make that happen. This is an important point. Some of the schemes we have been talking about will be available to landlords. Through a combination of some landlords already meeting the standards and that help, we are confident that costs will be reduced and it will not lead to higher rents.
Offshore Wind
Carla Denyer Excerpts(10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ed Miliband
I assure my hon. Friend, who is a fantastic champion on these issues, that we are very much engaged with Port Talbot and the port on this issue, and with Associated British Ports, because it is important that we make those investments in the port. She should watch this space.
Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)
As a former offshore wind engineer, I am delighted that the Government have secured record offshore wind capacity, and I say, genuinely, “Well done.” However, what is even cheaper than renewable energy is the energy that we do not need to use because our homes are more energy-efficient, so the Government’s scrapping of an energy efficiency programme last year without announcing what would replace it was less welcome. Can the Secretary of State assure my constituents that when the long-delayed warm homes plan does emerge, it will ensure that everyone can have a comfortable, warm, energy-efficient, affordable home?
Ed Miliband
I am grateful for the tone of the hon. Lady’s question. I will return the compliment, and thank her for her kind words about this auction round. She is entirely right about the importance of our warm homes plan and investing in energy efficiency; the plan will be coming very soon, and that is what it will do.
Oral Answers to Questions
Carla Denyer Excerpts(10 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris McDonald
I thank my hon. Friend for welcoming that news. I know it was a really big day for him, and his dogged determination to champion his constituents is seen both in his constituency and here in this House. We are supporting Grangemouth, and the MiAlgae project, which was announced by the Chancellor in the Budget, is exactly along the lines that he mentions. He talks about investment in sustainable aviation fuel. Many private companies want to invest in sustainable aviation fuel in Grangemouth, in Teesside, in Humberside and across the whole of the UK, and I am sure we will see more such plants in the future.
Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)
The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Ed Miliband)
The affordability crisis is the No. 1 issue facing families across our country. That is why we have acted to take £150 of costs off bills for all families, with an additional £150 through the warm home discount for 6 million households this winter. Thanks to our decisions, last year was a record year for wind and solar power, and we have embarked on the biggest nuclear building programme for half a century. That is what it means to deliver on lower bills, good jobs and energy security.
Carla Denyer
Climate change made 2025 the UK’s hottest year on record and fuelled deadly extreme weather events across the globe. We know that every drop of oil and gas used makes those events more likely, so will the Secretary of State confirm how much more new oil and gas could be extracted via the tiebacks that the Government have decided to allow, despite the new oil and gas ban? When developers apply for permission for those tiebacks, will they be required to include scope 3 emissions in their environmental impact assessments?
Ed Miliband
I wish the hon. Lady a happy new year, but I find that question a bit churlish. We have produced a world-leading plan for the North sea, which combines the just transition—the just and prosperous transition—with environmental leadership, while keeping to our manifesto commitment not to issue new licences to explore new fields. It is absolutely right that we have tiebacks to ensure that existing oil and gas fields are kept open for their lifetime. Obviously, the North Sea Transition Authority will consult on the details of how that will work, but it is absolutely the right thing to do for jobs and the environment.
Oral Answers to Questions
Carla Denyer Excerpts(1 year, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Michael Shanks
First, I will take no lessons from the party that brought Chinese investors right into building our nuclear power station. This Government are delivering a nuclear power station with British Government funding, not Chinese funding, so I will take no lessons from the Conservatives on that. Many companies want to come and invest in the UK, and we absolutely welcome investment into this country, but every single decision and investment obviously has to pass stringent national security tests. I will not engage right now in what those tests will be, but we will say very clearly that no decision we make will ever compromise our national security.
Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Katie White)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the hon. Lady for her continued advocacy on this agenda. I have enjoyed working with her from the Back Benches and hope to continue to do so in this new post. I am excited to share with her and the whole House the carbon budget growth and delivery plan later this month. What I can say now is that ensuring that low and middle-income families can benefit from the energy transition is absolutely central to our mission. It is why we are rolling out the biggest home upgrade scheme in a generation and why we are moving away from expensive fossil fuels towards cheap, clean British power in homes and communities across our country.
Carla Denyer
I welcome the Minister to her new position and thank her for her answer. I know how much she will want the new carbon budget delivery plan to reflect the scale of ambition required while ensuring that the poorest are not asked to pay the price, and also to signal that it is an absolute priority across Government. Can she assure us that the new plan will not just be slipped out, but will be launched properly and, crucially, with the Prime Minister?
Prax Lindsey Oil Refinery
Carla Denyer Excerpts(1 year, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Michael Shanks
I will avoid the wider political points in a week when workers are finding out about job losses, because that is obviously devastating for them. I will just say that the Government have published their industrial strategy, and this is the first time the country has had an industrial strategy in a very long time. [Interruption.] Well, let us say a credible industrial strategy, if the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) thinks he had one before. Again, I ask him to present it to me. We are investing in the industries of the future, and delivering thousands of jobs on the Humber and right across the country. We are making sure that investment comes forward in jobs for the future. [Interruption.] The problem with the right hon. Gentleman’s point is that his party opposes that investment. It opposes the very thing that will deliver the jobs of the future, and I am afraid that is simply an untenable position. Either he is for or against investment in jobs; he has to say which it is. The industrial strategy is the way to deliver that.
Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)
The last time we discussed Prax Lindsey, I asked the Minister to support my energy jobs Bill—a plan for the redeployment and retraining of oil and gas workers that is proactive and industry-wide rather than reactive and crisis by crisis, and that would be paid for by the companies. That is what the workers and the unions want, but the Minister said he did not agree with it. He has now said that the Government will fund a training guarantee for these refinery workers and is asking this company’s owners to make voluntary contributions to support workers. That is progress, but will he now turn this into a proactive and industry-wide plan, and please go beyond asking the company nicely to do the right thing and require it?
Michael Shanks
I think the hon. Lady slightly misses the point. The company went into insolvency. The workers are therefore entitled only to statutory redundancy. I do not think that that is acceptable, so I have called—not nicely, but directly—for the owners of that company to do the right thing, put their hands in their pockets and fund proper redundancy for those workers. That is separate from a wider piece of work we are doing around the transition. I think she also misses the point about the importance of delivering investment in oil and gas that is also investment in renewables and in carbon capture, utilisation and storage to deliver the jobs that come next, so that there is a transition for those workers. I have said that I do not support her proposal, and I am happy to say that again because it would do neither of those things. It is essential that we support the oil and gas industry in its current form, but recognise that it is in transition. We still have decades of oil and gas to come in this country, but we are already building up the industry that comes next. That needs investment, and it also needs us to build infrastructure, which many people in her party seem to oppose.