North Sea Oil and Gas

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Wednesday 24th June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Bradley Thomas]

I thank my hon. Friend for his first spoken contribution as an elected Member. He is already demonstrating his resoundingly strong voice on behalf of the people of Aberdeen South, many of whom are employed in the industry and terrified about what the scale and pace of what the Government are doing represent for their futures.

It appears that the Government would rather ignore warnings that their refusal to replace the energy profits levy is putting 200,000 jobs at growing risk than delay their ideology for even a few years. They would even rather ignore the Scottish Affairs Committee’s warnings that clean energy jobs are not keeping pace with oil and gas job losses, rather than give up on this net zero legacy.

I have one question for the Government: what do they say to the thousands of workers who risk losing their jobs or have already lost them? The Government will claim that clean energy is providing 100,000 jobs, but have they shared the detail on the quality of those jobs and the pay cuts that the workers are having to take? Why has that not happened? Because it means that the Government would have to take responsibility for a mess that they are compounding.

The bottom line is this: if we want to support those workers, we must support the North sea oil and gas industry. The ban on new oil and gas licences is leaving at least 2.9 billion barrels of oil in the ground—billions in monetary value that could be added to our economy, thousands of jobs that could be secured and millions of homes powered.

I predict what the rebuttal point will be: it does not matter how many barrels come from the North sea because it is all sold on an international market and therefore will have no impact on our energy prices, which are dictated by global pricing.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

About 90% of the reserves in the North sea have already been extracted. Has the hon. Gentleman looked at the analysis of how expensive it is to reach the rest of the reserves? One reason they are still there is that it is far more expensive to extract them. Has he seen whether there is an economic case for doing so?

[Bradley Thomas]

Underpinning so many of the decisions taken by the Government is a fundamental lack of appreciation for how businesses take investment decisions. They are not incentivised to do so. Allow the market to operate by restricting regulation and financial pressure on it, and businesses will innovate. They will invest to extract resources that are viable because they can be sold on the international market. It is basic economics that the more product they have to meet demand, the more substantial the price reduction. Scarcity drives cost. The Labour party loves to argue that our North sea industry produces too little to have a significant impact on the global market, but less than 1% of global carbon emissions appears significant enough to dictate our national energy strategy. Why, then, is a 1.5% share of the global market considered too small to be worth pursuing? The answer is that it does not serve the “net zero by 2050 at any cost” narrative.

The fact that our energy security and our North sea industries are in a crisis is not new information. We all know it. Members across this House know it. Tony Blair knows it. Even the Energy Secretary himself knows it; he just will not admit it. It is time to put personal ambition and ideology aside. People need their bills reduced and jobs secured now. They are tired of being left to the whim of global market fluctuations, when the Government are not acting to stabilise the market by increasing supply and securing jobs. It is time to do what is best for our country and support the North sea industry that provides employment, helps to regulate global pricing and protects our national energy security.

--- Later in debate ---

[Uma Kumaran (Stratford and Bow) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) for securing a debate on such an important issue. I put it on record that I am the chair of the APPG on climate change.

Frustratingly, the British public once again find themselves at the mercy of the latest chapter of the geopolitical crisis. Our constituents are looking at their energy bills and wincing at yet another increase, as people up and down the country pay the price for an energy market that is exposed to global conflict. The fact remains that the hard-earned money of British taxpayers and bill payers is lining the pockets of fossil fuel giants, which want us to believe that drilling oil is the only way forward. As long as the UK relies heavily on oil and gas, global conflicts and supply disruptions will continue to lead to price hikes. That is why we need to focus on cleaner energy sources. Those hikes are driving fuel poverty in every corner of our country, leaving less money in the pockets of workers and pensioners alike.

For too long—we have heard this in the debate—climate action has been pitched as a zero-sum game in which economic activity will somehow be hampered, but it is not at odds with economic security or prosperity. There is a case for moving away from oil and gas and towards clean energy not only for our planet, but for British bill payers. Energy bills cannot and will not be brought down by North sea oil and gas. Our constituents are better protected from energy shocks by investment in renewables than by further exposure to volatile fossil fuel markets.

The British taxpayer has been subsidising a hugely polluting industry for too long. Oil and gas companies enjoy an effective tax subsidy of £3 billion every year, when we should instead be investing in the industries of the future, such as renewable energy projects that deliver wealth back into our communities, building global leadership and growing global markets for clean energy technologies. I worked globally on such initiatives with nearly 100 countries in the United Nations. Countries are successfully shifting away from fossil fuel production. That is happening—it is a reality.

[Kerry McCarthy]

Something that has been missing from this debate is the opportunity we have to be the leading exponents of offshore wind, including floating offshore wind, hybrid assets and energy connection. When I was a climate Minister, I held the international energy brief, and whether it was from talking to Azerbaijan about what it can do in the Caspian sea, to countries on the Black sea, to countries on the Baltic sea or to the governors of states on the west coast of America, I saw that everyone is interested in what we are doing and that there is huge potential. Does my hon. Friend agree?

[Uma Kumaran]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend.

We are talking about communities that are dependent on this industry. As a proud member of the GMB, I absolutely understand why workers must be at the heart of this. North sea oil and gas reserves are in terminal decline. They cannot provide a secure future for workers, and there is no long-term future in them. We have heard that just 10% is left to be extracted.

Backing Business to Create Economic Growth

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Monday 18th May 2026 Commons Chamber

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

I welcome the measures set out in the King’s Speech, and the wider Government programme to back British businesses. In the face of ever more disabling global headwinds, it is crucial to have a Government who accept an interventionist role, whether through renationalising British Steel, setting up Great British Energy, tougher regulation of the water companies, competition reform or tackling late payments. There is acknowledgement that an engaged state is needed, and that leaving things to the market simply does not work.

It is disappointing and frustrating that even now we are having to relitigate the debate about whether reaching our climate goals and protecting our planet is compatible with economic growth and prosperity. On the one hand, we have the Tories and Reform peddling fallacious arguments about the cost of net zero, and completely failing to grasp the importance of ending our dependence on volatile fossil-fuel markets—with an apparent abject ignorance of things like electric arc furnaces and carbon capture and storage. On the other hand, we have the Greens and their anti-growth agenda, not understanding that for redistribution, we first need to have a growing, strong economy to redistribute from; that to solve a housing crisis, we need to support our construction industry; and that we can pursue economic growth in a way that helps us protect the planet, rather than plunder it.

Indeed, many companies in my constituency of Bristol East, some of which are attracting international attention, are showing how that can be done. Matter was recently runner-up for the Earthshot prize, having developed washing machine filters that will filter out 97% of microplastics. LettUs Grow’s aeroponic growing systems were being talked about at the desertification COP that I attended in Riyadh in 2024, and Vertical Aviation is pioneering electric flight with a very cool plane. At national level, clean energy is the fastest-growing sector of the economy, bringing jobs and economic growth back to de-industrialised communities—and it has huge export potential.

When I was climate Minister with the international energy brief, I saw that the British model for offshore wind was seen as the gold standard, in everything from the way we financed it through contracts for difference to the innovation of floating offshore wind and offshore hybrid assets, such as the Nautilus and LionLink interconnector pilots. Whether I was at North Seas Energy Co-operation events, or talking to the President of Azerbaijan ahead of COP29, there was great interest in what we were doing and recognition of our expertise. The same was true of our progress on small modular reactors, fusion, and carbon capture and storage. It has to be said that that was not always recognised by other parts of the Government. Sometimes, there was a battle to stress to them just how crucial the drive towards net zero could be to our economic opportunities. Too often, progress was stalled by, “Treasury says no,” “No. 10 says no,” or “The Department for Business and Trade says no.” The knee-jerk reaction was that regulation or intervention would be a burden on business.

To take forest risk commodities as an example, in the Environment Act 2021, the previous Government committed to introducing regulations to stamp out deforestation in our supply chains. The EU was on the same mission, using the EU deforestation regulation. When I was a Minister in this Government, there were lengthy discussions about whether we should stick with the UK approach, centred on illegal deforestation, or adopt the EU’s approach, which was based on sustainability. Those discussions were valid, but what was not valid was some quarters suggesting that we should not regulate at all. First, there was the reputational crisis. How could the UK, which co-chaired the global Forest and Climate Leaders’ Partnership with Guyana, and the forest, agriculture and commodity trade dialogue with Malaysia, call on other countries to protect and restore our precious forests and peatlands if we were not prepared to act ourselves? We would have no moral standing. Secondly, businesses want this. I met companies such as Ferrero, and major supermarkets, who want the Government to act, set the direction and show leadership, so that they can plan accordingly. They do not see that as a burden. It is lack of certainty that businesses hate. They are perfectly willing to get with the programme, if they know what the programme is.

We saw misplaced caution in other areas, too, such as on our manifesto commitment to 1.5°-aligned transition plans. One other area where I suspect other parts of the Government machine have been acting as a drag on progress is the development of voluntary carbon and nature markets. We know that public money and philanthropy alone will be nowhere near enough to enable us to meet our climate and nature goals. We also know that private finance is interested in investment, whether that is driven by the need to offset its own emissions, decarbonise portfolios, or ensure biodiversity net gain—or whether it is driven by insurers’ worries about climate risks and so on. In London, we have the world’s leading financial centre, and we are the best place to lead—many international visitors to last year’s buzzing London Climate Action Week told us that—but the consultation that concluded on 10 July last year seems to have gone into the ether. If the Minister can reply on only one issue that I have asked about, can she tell us what has happened to progress on the voluntary carbon and nature markets?

Oral Answers to Questions

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Thursday 25th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I thank my hon. Friend for all her work. At one point we were co-chairs of the all-party group for whistleblowing, and she does a tremendous job in raising this issue time and again in the House. We are currently reviewing the effectiveness of the whistleblowing framework in meeting its intended objectives. Every scandal that I have talked about in this House over the years, from the Back Benches and the Front Benches, has come to light because of whistleblowers, who are hugely important. We are reviewing that frame- work. The research for the review is near completion, the Government will set out the next steps in due course, and yes, of course I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss that.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

I, too, have a constituent who, although she was thankfully not prosecuted, was forced over a period of more than a decade to pay back thousands of pounds every year, and it amounts to a six-figure sum. As the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Jo Gideon) said, this is not just about that pecuniary loss; this is about the impact on my constituent’s family—I will not go into her personal details, but they took a real hit and I wish she had come forward to me sooner. I met her a couple of weeks ago and it really has wrecked her life. She has not yet had any compensation through the shortfall scheme, so I urge the Minister to ensure that such people are properly compensated.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right to raise that point. Yes, the compensation scheme is there to compensate and provide redress for financial loss, but also, quite rightly, for personal loss, loss of reputation, impact on health—those kinds of matters. There are two routes open to compensation: the £75,000 fixed-sum award, which is pretty much an immediate payment, or someone can go for a full assessment of losses, which takes into account all those matters. Interim payments are also available. We have paid out £153 million in total across the schemes. I am happy to help the hon. Lady with that specific case, and we are looking to try to expedite the payment of full and fair compensation to all individuals. I am working on a daily basis to try to do that.

Worker Protection (Amendment of Equality Act 2010) Bill

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Friday 20th October 2023 Commons Chamber

When the Bill started its passage, Members rightly spoke in unison about the appalling scale and nature of sexual harassment in Britain’s workplaces. Indeed, we should all be deeply concerned about the numbers of women facing harassment at work. The latest data from the Government show that nearly one in three employees experienced some form of sexual harassment in the previous year. That means that 4.7 million women each year experience harassment in the workplace, and we know that the impact on those victims can be profound. We know that it can lead to a variety of harms, including psychological, physical and economic harms, and all too often the perpetrators get away with it. According to recent data, 41% of perpetrators of sexual harassment see no sanction at all. Meanwhile, 17% of those who are sexually harassed end up working elsewhere due to their experiences. In 2023, that is not good enough. Those figures speak for themselves about why parliamentary intervention is needed.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

I am glad that we are supporting this Bill. My hon. Friend talks about women being subject to sexual harassment, and we know that the problem is endemic, but it also seems that, increasingly, young men are reporting that they are falling foul of that—even in this place. It is really important that we recognise that men, particularly younger men, can be victims as well.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Thursday 14th September 2023 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, and we urge banks to listen to their customers about keeping their doors open. Of course, we have the banking framework relationship with the post office network, which provides deposit and cash facilities for small businesses on high streets in Denton and other parts of the country. We are determined to make that relationship more generous to the Post Office to ensure the sustainability of the post office network.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

Over the recess, I had the pleasure of visiting the historic Harland & Wolff shipyard in north Devon, where we talked about the potential for UK shipbuilding jobs linked to the offshore renewables sector. Given last week’s disappointing auction round, to put it mildly, what can the Minister say to convince the shipbuilding industry that there is a future for it in making those service vessels?

[Ms Ghani]

I was with Harland & Wolff just last night for London International Shipping Week, and the firm is really excited about the shipbuilding credit guarantee scheme, which provides Government-backed loans of up to £500 million to ensure that shipbuilding continues to thrive in the UK. That is a product for which the industry has been asking for many years, and we have been able to deliver it this year.

Legislative Definition of Sex

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Monday 12th June 2023 Westminster Hall

[Andrew Lewer (Northampton South) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir George.

I want to talk about a specific situation in which clarity about the meaning of “sex” is utterly essential—a situation in which it is vital that everybody knows what the words “male” and “female” mean, and in which it is vital that those words have their natural meanings: the immutable binary characteristic that all humans, and indeed all mammals, possess from the beginning of their life to the end of it.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Andrew Lewer]

I will follow the example of the hon. Lady’s colleague, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle), and not give way.

I also want to talk about the consequences when there is a lack of clarity and about what happens when our laws mix up material, concrete, physical realities with words and claims about identity. The reason I want to do that is because the consequences can be horrific. When legislators make a mistake, it is ordinary people who suffer. Our laws have to be clear. In situations where sex matters, it is sex that matters.

People can identify however they like, so long as claims about their identity do not injure other people. But injuring other people is what is happening now, because our laws have drifted away from reality and in the process have got muddled. It is well past time to return to clarity and reality, and doing that means clarifying that when the Equality Act says “sex”, it really means sex. We are at a juncture where we have to draw a line in the sand of competing claims.

I ask my honourable colleagues to think of a stark but perfectly commonplace example of a situation where sex matters—that of a woman who is having a gynaecological procedure. Perhaps she is having a cervical smear test, or she needs an hysteroscopy, in which a camera is passed through her vagina and cervix into her uterus. For such procedures, she must take her clothes off from the waist down and be touched intimately. Many, many women are unwilling to go through such procedures except with female health workers. Some women have specific reasons; they are survivors of sexual assaults, or their religion requires them to avoid intimate contact with any man except their husband. Others are simply setting their own boundaries on the basis of what is comfortable for them, and their feelings about privacy and dignity are perfectly normal and a sound basis for them to grant or withhold consent. Here is the stark question in clear language: is a man who identifies as a woman a satisfactory person to provide care to a female patient who has stated that she is willing to undergo such a procedure only at the hands of another woman?

Here is what the NHS Confederation said in guidance sent around the country last week: despite the express wishes of the patient, that man is a suitable person to provide care to that woman. His feelings about his identity override the material reality of intimate contact with her body. They override her privacy, her dignity, her boundaries and her consent, and if she complains, she is transphobic and may be asked to leave the hospital or surgery. If her relatives speak up for her, they may be removed. All of that is dressed up in the language of gender identity. The patient has no rights to know the health worker’s gender identity. It is not the identity of this man, however, that the woman is concerned about; it is his sex.

The NHS Confederation is not an outlier. The British Medical Association, which regulates doctors, says that patients have no rights to be told a healthcare worker’s assigned sex at birth. However, sex is not assigned at birth: sex is observed at birth, as determined by conception. Moreover, if a patient has asked for a carer of the same sex as them, according to the BMA it is the comfort of the staff member that should be prioritised.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Thursday 23rd March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Kemi Badenoch]

I thank my hon. Friend for her question. We have increased the tempo of trade missions in Cambodia, and we are actively supporting British companies to expand operations in the education, infrastructure and sustainable energy sectors. In May 2022 the Department appointed a new export support service trade officer to help British companies, including those in her constituency, that wish to export to Laos. It is also eligible for preferential treatment under the developing countries trading scheme. Both initiatives will help boost the UK’s trade with Laos, and I look forward to working with my hon. Friend on improving relations with that country.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

A Canadian company sponsored by several Pacific island states is poised to begin deep-sea mining at the bottom of the Pacific ocean next year unless we manage to secure a precautionary pause at the International Seabed Authority meetings that are going on at the moment. Will the UK be joining France, Germany, Spain, Chile, New Zealand and some Pacific nations in calling for that precautionary pause, and in what way can we support the economies of Pacific island states without them having to resort to sponsoring such environmentally damaging activities?

[Kemi Badenoch]

I thank the hon. Lady for her question, and this is a serious matter. The Minister responsible for industry and economic security—the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani) —has been dealing with this issue, and she will get in touch if the hon. Lady writes to her.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Thursday 9th February 2023 Commons Chamber

[Ms Ghani]

My hon. Friend has given a fantastic example of the opportunities that have been created. The UK is a highly attractive destination for FDI, and has been among the top recipients in Europe over the last decade. According to the Financial Times and the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, the UK has the highest market share of greenfield FDI capital expenditure in Europe, at 20%—almost double that of Spain, which is in second place with 12%. It also has the highest levels of Food and Drug Administration stock in Europe, second only to the United States globally. It is remarkable how far we have progressed in such a short time.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

The Biden Administration’s Inflation Reduction Act 2022 makes investing in the US very attractive, particularly for innovative green technology. How are we going to compete?

[Ms Ghani]

In my previous role I was dealing with the impacts of the Inflation Reduction Act, and I hope I will continue to do so, because so many business representatives whom I have met have raised it as a concern. The hon. Lady has referred to green technology. A great deal of work has already been done to promote all our expertise, especially in relation to hydrogen, but there is a huge amount of investment in the UK’s green technology sector and technology in general, and we are also a leading light when it comes to lithium. I was recently in Cape Town with our Green Lithium firm, which wanted to negotiate on how it could do more work in the United States. That is exactly what we are here to do—to facilitate collaboration of that kind.