Rosebank Oilfield: Government Policy

Cat Eccles Excerpts

Wednesday 11th November 2026 Westminster Hall

[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.

Oral Answers to Questions

Cat Eccles Excerpts

Tuesday 7th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Cat Eccles (Stourbridge) (Lab)]

During the heatwave a fortnight ago, I was contacted by the head of Oldswinford primary school in my constituency, who felt that the Government’s advice on keeping the building cool for children did not adequately reflect the challenges. I know that this feeling was shared by other schools around the country and the National Education Union. I was also contacted by bus drivers and office workers. What is the Minister doing to ensure that schools and workplaces are resilient to increased and sustained temperatures in the future?

[Katie White]

I thank my hon. Friend for her contributions on climate change in the debate last week on carbon budget 7. The recent heatwave showed us for the first time the implications that we face across our country. For parents up and down the country, when many schools closed—not to mention other workplaces and hospitals—it had a catastrophic effect. We are looking at the issue across the board. We have an energy resilience strategy coming forward, as well as a wider taskforce, and I am working across Government with colleagues to ensure that any advice is updated, because this is sadly the new normal.

Climate Change

Cat Eccles Excerpts

Wednesday 24th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Cat Eccles (Stourbridge) (Lab)]

In 2026, the question is no longer whether we act on the climate crisis, but how fast we do so. Most people accept the science, which shows that the Earth’s average surface temperatures have increased significantly over the past century. It is hard to deny this in a week where the UK is yet again experiencing record-breaking heat, although one climate sceptic told me online recently that “it’s just weather”. Yes, there have been hot periods in recent history, but these are becoming more frequent and more prolonged, with global temperatures set to rise by 1.5°C to 2°C by 2050. While that may sound like a small number, these increases will lead to farmers’ crops failing more regularly, threatening food security. People’s health will be impacted. Sea temperatures will further increase; this will melt ice sheets and release massive amounts of carbon and methane into the permafrost, further increasing temperatures.

The net zero brand, however, has become toxic, failing to clearly communicate what must be done and why. Measures to deal with climate and the environment are not “nice to haves”—they are essential to protect the country’s ecosystem, agriculture and infrastructure. It is no longer about whether we can afford to take action; it is about whether we can afford not to do so. If we do, our economy will actually benefit. We must confront the misinformation directly and put forward credible, practical solutions. The populist right promotes the misleading claim that the UK can secure its energy by drilling more oil and gas in the North sea, but in reality, projects such as the Rosebank oilfield would deliver only a relatively small supply of oil and be subject to global price shocks, all while causing significant environmental damage and giving more profits to oil giants. True energy security and lower costs will come from sustained investment in renewable energy, not from doubling down on fossil fuels.

Some 37 years ago, Margaret Thatcher stood before the UN General Assembly and warned of the dangers of rising carbon emissions and their impact on the Earth’s climate. At the time, the Conservatives respected that evidence and engaged seriously with the science, but today the party is a pound shop version of its former self, more preoccupied with chasing Reform votes than offering serious solutions to the challenges facing our country.

We urgently need to tell a better story on climate change and to show the public how policies will benefit them where it matters—in their pocket. During the last heatwave a few weeks ago, more than 80% of the energy in the grid came from renewable sources. That is a fantastic news story, and the public are set to reap the benefits from the planned decoupling of gas and electricity prices. Across the UK, we are already seeing warmer, wetter winters and hotter, drier summers, but this is not a task for DESNZ alone. A golden thread of safeguarding our environment for future generations must run across all Departments.

Oral Answers to Questions

Cat Eccles Excerpts

Tuesday 10th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Cat Eccles (Stourbridge) (Lab)]

14. What steps his Department is taking to help ensure the accuracy of small businesses’ energy bills.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Martin McCluskey)]

One of the best ways to ensure accurate billing is by using a smart meter, which automatically records energy use in every half-hour period, allowing bills based on actual rather than estimated usage. That is why more than two thirds of non-domestic premises are already using a smart meter.

[Cat Eccles]

Small businesses across my constituency have been mis-sold commercial energy contracts by brokers. A business in Lye was recently locked into a three-year contract in which it found itself paying more than double the market rate. An independent café in the Merry Hill centre recently had to close due to the £1,500 a month in energy bills that it was forced to pay. Will the Government strengthen the law to protect small businesses against unscrupulous energy brokers and consider introducing a cap on business tariffs?

[Martin McCluskey]

I am sorry to hear about the experience of businesses in my hon. Friend’s constituency. The short answer to her question is yes, we will strengthen the law in this area. Rogue energy brokers have been allowed to use predatory sales tactics for too long to take advantage of customers. That is why, once parliamentary time allows, we will be introducing new measures to stamp out that exploitation.

Oral Answers to Questions

Cat Eccles Excerpts

Tuesday 15th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Ed Miliband]

There is no monopoly on good ideas, and the hon. Lady raises the important issue of how we adapt as a country to the climate crisis. We know we have a lot more to do, and we will listen to all good ideas.

[Cat Eccles (Stourbridge) (Lab)]

T5.   In my constituency I am proud that we have the first example in the country of a high-energy use craft that has transitioned fully to renewables, having worked with a UK manufacturer to create a super-efficient electric furnace. Will the Secretary of State come to Stourbridge and visit Allister Malcolm Glass at the Stourbridge Glass Museum with me, to highlight it as an example for others to follow, and protect high-energy use heritage crafts across the country?

[Ed Miliband]

My hon. Friend raises a great example, and I will take a risk and say yes, I will come to Stourbridge. I love Stourbridge, and I look forward to seeing that project.

Onshore Wind and Solar Generation

Cat Eccles Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Cat Eccles (Stourbridge) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for expediting this important legislation to transform the energy landscape in the UK. I have long campaigned for renewable energy measures to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels and to produce green power of our own. The UK has suffered significantly, like many other countries, from the cost of oil and gas skyrocketing due to the ongoing war between Russia and Ukraine. The Conservatives did nothing to help the situation. They abandoned much of the country’s energy storage, leaving us reliant on fossil fuels pumped in under the channel, and did not take energy security seriously. They further compounded the situation by scrapping their net zero targets and championing dirty, polluting gas and oil.

Last year, the UK hit a historic milestone, with 42% of energy coming from renewable sources, including 31% being generated by wind power. As energy bills rise yet again, it is clear that we need to break the shackles that hold us hostage to energy companies charging extortionate rates just to keep the lights on. British people simply cannot afford for the status quo to continue, financially and environmentally.

I am proud that this Government are leading the way by setting up Great British Energy to give us energy independence, security and longevity, but that needs to be backed up by planning infrastructure changes that support our aims. I understand concerns that our countryside and agricultural land could be at risk from the development of renewable power sources and upgrading the grid, but I am confident that this Government will ensure that infrastructure is always in the right place and done in the right way.

Creating the infrastructure is not the end of the story. Due to the lack of energy storage and grid capacity, around 8.3 terawatt-hours—about 10% of the wind power—is effectively lost. Even though National Grid is working at speed to upgrade the networks to ensure that not a single watt-hour is lost, we need to do more.

Two years ago, my husband and I retrofitted and upgraded our home by removing the gas, installing solar panels and an air-source heat pump, and fully insulating externally. But we quickly realised the battery was not big enough to store all the energy we were producing, and despite being able to sell some of it back to the grid, it would have been better to be able to store more of it for a rainy—or rather, snowy and icy—day. Scale that up, and it is the same for the whole country. We need to harness that additional energy to help to reduce the need for fossil fuels.

I hope this change will filter down into the house building industry. It has long been a bugbear of mine that developers are only required to install an electric vehicle charging point on new build homes. We need to mandate solar panels on every roof and proper insulation, so that heat does not escape through the walls, and ensure that homes across the UK are fit for the future. I also take this opportunity to welcome the fund made available by West Midlands Mayor Richard Parker to help small businesses to make the transition to renewable energy. Small and medium-sized enterprises have been hit hard by energy price rises, and uncapped tariffs have caused bills to spiral to unsustainable levels.

To drive growth, we need energy security to make bills affordable for residents and businesses alike. Breaking down the barriers to tackling climate change and the energy crisis will help us to meet the Government’s ambitious targets for energy storage and grid reinforcement, but we must move at pace to match the growth of renewable generation. Streamlining planning processes and investment in energy storage will help our country to transition to a low-cost, green and clean power grid by 2030.