Jackdaw Gasfield

Michael Shanks Excerpts

Wednesday 21st October 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Energy (Michael Shanks)]

First, Mr Speaker, I entirely respect your comments. I hope that in my time in this House I have always given you the impression that I take this House seriously. Your points have been noted, and I will absolutely take them back to the Department.

[Mr Speaker]

It would be different if we had not had this conversation once before—you promised me previously that these comments would be noted. I am sorry that you have been put up when the Secretary of State cannot be bothered to come, Minister. I am sorry that Aberdeen is more important than the MPs who have been elected.

[Michael Shanks]

With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will now make a statement on the offshore Jackdaw gasfield and the Government’s approach more broadly to North sea oil and gas. This supplements the written ministerial statement that I made to the House on the topic earlier this morning.

The original grant of consent for the Jackdaw project, made in 2022 under the previous Government, was judged to be unlawful and was quashed by the courts. This was because emissions from the burning of extracted gas were not considered, and it therefore did not assess the full environmental impacts of the project. My right hon. Friend the Energy Secretary and the regulator have now retaken the relevant decisions, fully taking into account environmental impacts.

Today, I can inform the House that the Energy Secretary has decided in favour of the project and that the regulator, the North Sea Transition Authority, has now granted consent for gas to be produced at the licensed Jackdaw field. Given that the court permitted the developer to continue development at risk until a new consenting decision was made, the project will therefore start to supply gas to British homes and businesses by as soon as the end of this month.

In reaching her decision, the Energy Secretary considered all relevant information in the round. She looked at the project’s expected benefits to the UK, including its contribution to energy security, employment, impacts on other energy infrastructure and other economic benefits, and carefully weighed them against the potential environmental effects, including the effects relating to greenhouse gas emissions. The full reasons for our decisions are set out in detail in the decision document, which was published on gov.uk.

I want to assure the House that the Government remain committed to tackling the climate crisis and to moving away from fossil fuels and towards renewable and nuclear energy. The recent heatwaves and weather events we have seen demonstrate why that is critical, and the Secretary of State will be leading the UK delegation to COP next month to drive global action and build a credible pathway back to 1.5° of warming.

I want to be clear that this project will not prevent the UK from being able to meet its legally binding limits on carbon emissions and achieve net zero by 2050. But even on the path to net zero, the UK will still require oil and gas as part of our energy needs for decades to come. This decision is consistent with the Government’s manifesto commitments to end new licences, explore new fields and support the management of existing fields for their lifespan.

The Chancellor and the Energy Secretary have also announced that the Government will establish a new North sea energy wealth fund, which will use tax revenues from North sea oil and gas to invest in net zero projects and support the green transition. This will start with an initial £2 billion capital injection of funding, with future revenues from the North sea flowing into the fund over time. It will support our plans to delink gas and electricity over the course of the Parliament, ensuring that home-grown renewables and low-carbon power set the price of electricity far more than gas, helping to protect households and businesses from volatile fossil fuel markets and bring down bills for good.

The North sea future plan set out our approach to securing a managed, orderly and prosperous transition and set out how we will deliver our manifesto commitment to support the management of existing fields by introducing transitional energy certificates, and we will legislate for those reforms when parliamentary time allows.

However, a small number of tieback projects face urgent investment and operational decisions now, and I have therefore asked the North Sea Transition Authority to consider whether any such projects could benefit from similar measures now, before the legislation is in place. This is a limited interim arrangement for urgent cases where operators can demonstrate committed investment, credible delivery plans and near-term activity. Any decision will remain for the NSTA, in accordance with its statutory responsibilities.

Timely decommissioning is important for both the environment and the economy, and this Government are keen to unblock and progress decisions in a timely way. I can also announce today that the regulator has invited the decommissioning programme for the Brent installations, marking an important step in restarting another regulatory process that has been on hold for years.

My officials are also beginning discussions with industry leaders on a refresh of the North sea transition deal to ensure that future domestic oil and gas production continues to benefit the UK and to build the energy industries of the future. First agreed in 2021, the deal aims to provide a clear path for the industry to support the UK in reaching net zero carbon emissions by 2050, while protecting jobs and supporting energy security.

Finally, as the Prime Minister said a few moments ago, we are looking at removing standing charges on gas bills at the earliest opportunity.

Today’s decision means that we will get more power flowing directly into British homes and businesses this winter as we continue our transition to renewables. I commend this statement to the House.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)]

Finally, Mr Speaker—at last, after two and a half years, this Government have found it within themselves to do the right thing, after exhausting all the alternatives. We have arrived at this destination far later than we should have.

Jackdaw was first approved by us in 2022. When in government, we approved it in line with the law as we saw it at the time, and we were confident that we would win the appeal in the Court of Session and ensure that we could get British gas into British homes as soon as possible.

But then entered the former Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Ed Miliband), who, in one of his first acts as Secretary of State, pulled lawyers from the appeal, ensuring and guaranteeing that it would fail. There was absolutely no reason to do that. Approving Jackdaw is about security, jobs and our economy. At every moment up to today, this Government have chosen to prioritise their own self-interest—and winning a by-election in Holborn and St Pancras—over the interests of the British people.

Jackdaw alone will provide enough resources to heat 1.4 million British homes—homes that will no longer need to rely on expensive and high-carbon emitting liquefied natural gas imports. Today we have heard the Secretary of State and the Minister talking about the pragmatism of the national interest. More gallingly, we have heard them talking about supporting British workers.

If the Government are serious about a new, pragmatic approach and serious about British jobs and British businesses, that surely means the forthcoming energy independence Bill will not contain measures to ban any new licences in the North sea—a purely ideological but unfathomable decision. If they really believe that a new pragmatism is needed in the North sea, that presumably means that the Chancellor will be announcing next week that he will be removing the energy profits levy.

This decision is welcome, but it should not have taken this long. Labour’s dither and delay over the past few years—and, indeed, the past few months—has cost us dear, with jobs lost, more businesses relocating and deindustrialisation. There is a reason the leader of the GMB union described this Department as the Department for P45s.

We have had oil downturns before, when global prices fell and jobs were lost in the UK. When it happened under our watch, we stepped up: we maximised recovery, cut taxes and turned the North sea into the most investable basin in the world. Today, there is no global downturn—prices are soaring across the world, and the oil and gas industry is expanding. Only in Britain, we now have a made-by-Labour, made-by-Miliband downturn. We have the only Government in the world who say, “Jobs being lost? Let’s speed that up.” We are the only country not maximising recovery and the only country choosing, in the middle of an energy crisis, to ban licences and exploration. Yet today, the workers in our oil and gas industry are to be thankful that after two and a half years of uncertainty, this Government—kicking and screaming—have finally done the right thing. I have no doubt that there will be more kicking and screaming from some of their Back Benchers today. Perhaps the prospect of more tax revenue will appease them—specifically the over £4 billion of tax receipts. That is revenue that we know the Chancellor desperately needs.

Today is a good day—finally. In the spirit of the Secretary of State’s new-found pragmatism, let us see a serious and pragmatic change of direction. Will the Government now approve Rosebank, lift the ban on exploration and new licences, end the crippling energy profits levy, and get Britain drilling?

[Michael Shanks]

In the two and a half years that the hon. Gentleman says that he has had to think about this, he might have come up with something better than that performance. The Conservatives’ lack of contrition for a decision that was quashed by a court is absolutely shameful. I reiterate that the Court was very clear in its judgment that while the decision did not stand, the project could continue to be developed, so there has been no delay in its development; that is why extraction from the Jackdaw field can continue.

The hon. Gentleman talked about dither and delay. That brings me to the truth of this, which is that the Conservative party left Britain with an energy system that was less secure, more exposed to international shocks and slower to invest than it should have been. I watched the Conservative party conference in great detail, and I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman seems to be shifting his party’s position back to what it was before the previous shadow Secretary of State’s time, and is supporting more renewables. I really welcome that, and I look forward to working with him to make that a success, because we agree on that.

This decision is important for our energy security and jobs, but the long-term pathway for Britain is towards not fossil fuels, but building the clean power system that we need, electrifying the economy, and building the nuclear that the hon. Gentleman claims to care so much about, although he did not build any in his two years as Nuclear Minister, due to dither and delay. We fell behind as a country on the energy security that we needed. This decision is part of our response to energy crises. To have a secure long-term future, we must build up the industries that come next. That is important for Britain’s energy security, jobs, and opportunities in his constituency and right across the country. That is what this Government will get on and do.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

I warmly welcome the Minister’s statement and the commitment to going ahead with Jackdaw. The Select Committee has heard evidence time and again about the damage done by the chaotic deindustrialisation of the ’80s, and the failure in the 2010s and early 2020s to take action in the North sea. The phrase “North sea energy wealth fund” has striking echoes with what Norway did right to avoid disastrous consequences of deindustrialisation.

The Committee has heard just how important supply chain companies and North sea oil and gas workers are, and how important they will be, when working with renewables, in the future. The Minister announced the fund and the North sea transition deal. Does he agree that the fastest, most effective way of delivering the energy transition is to support existing operations, supply chains and workers in North sea and oil and gas, so that they are available as we gear up on renewables and nuclear?

[Michael Shanks]

I agree with my hon. Friend about the transition. The vast majority of jobs in the oil and gas industry are in the very supply chains that we need to build the renewables and networks of the future, so it is important that we hold on to those; that is a huge opportunity.

Pragmatism has to go both ways. We have to be pragmatic about oil and gas in the North sea, but it would be irresponsible not to make the investment needed in clean power and the long-term future of jobs. We are seeking to do both. We will make sure that the transition is managed, by investing the revenues from this gas project—that is £2 billion initially, but additional revenues will flow into it—and will invest in the clean power projects that will help us to get off fossil fuels in the long term, while retaining the critical workforce in the UK.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)]

Today’s approval of Jackdaw, in the midst of a climate crisis, is proof that Britain has not moved forward nearly fast enough on reducing our reliance on gas and oil. The Supreme Court judgment requires analysis of scope 3 carbon emissions of gas and oil licences, so the Government must demonstrate that their decision to approve Jackdaw is compatible with our climate commitments, not just our net zero targets.

What is not compatible with our climate targets is our continued dependence on gas: 80% of UK households still heat their homes with gas. Heat pumps provide heating for just 2% of households in the UK. We hear that the Government plan to cut heat pump subsidies to homeowners who want to come off gas. The world has changed; we have had two global energy crises in five years. About a quarter of UK gas demand is supplied by imported liquefied natural gas. Our energy security is not strengthened by the fact that 70% of that comes from the US, given that Trump is prepared to turn that gas off.

Let me be clear: Jackdaw will not bring down bills. It will meet about 2% of UK gas demand. It will play a limited, short-term role, while displacing more polluting and insecure imports. This decision must be the tipping point for transformative investment in renewables and electrification. With respect to our climate obligations, what will the Government do to account for scope 3 emissions, beyond the territorial emissions in our net zero targets? Will the Minister commit to £15 billion of funding for the warm homes plan, and support the Liberal Democrats’ call for a national electrification strategy to drive down our dependence on gas for good?

[Michael Shanks]

I am genuinely confused about the Lib Dems’ position, because my understanding was that they were now in favour of the Jackdaw field. Maybe that will change again by the end of the day. I hear the point that she makes. We are not waiting for a tipping point. We have been getting on with electrification and building the clean power mission for the past two and a half years.

I would gently say to the Lib Dems that there were 10 sites for new nuclear projects in 2009. After Labour left office in 2010, the leader of the Liberal Democrats was Energy Minister for a period in which no new nuclear, which would have helped us, was built.

I agree with the hon. Lady’s point about climate. In making the decision, all those factors had to be weighed up. The full decision notice is available, and it goes into this in great detail, but the Secretary of State was very clear that her assessment is that the decision does not prevent the UK from meeting legally binding limits on carbon emissions, or from achieving our net zero target. A managed transition recognises that moving to a low-carbon economy will involve balancing climate objectives, the deployment of clean power and the electrification of heat and industry with ensuring energy security in the short term, in which we will be required to use oil and gas across our economy. This is about doing both, and getting us to the end point as quickly as possible.

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

Today’s decision is probably not a surprise to most people. It will make a relatively limited difference to energy security, and probably very little difference to pricing, but I very much welcome what the Minister said about it being part of a transition, and about us not ripping up the policy commitment to no wider exploration. I agree with him that this decision is consistent with our manifesto pledge.

We need to move to heat pumps and electric vehicles, and to make other changes for industry, but does the Minister agree that the absolute priority is bringing down electricity prices and getting us off the fossil fuel rollercoaster? What else will he do, in this Budget and Budgets to come, to make sure that we achieve that?

[Michael Shanks]

I agree with my hon. Friend about the absolute priority. He is absolutely right to say that this decision will not take a penny off bills. We have been consistent on that throughout. We are a price taker as a country, and no number of consenting decisions will change the fact that gas is traded on the international market and the decision is of marginal impact on the overall price; it does not have an impact on that. Nevertheless, the gas resulting from this decision will account for around 5% of domestic gas production, so the decision is important from a security point of view.

My hon. Friend’s wider point is about how we move many more people over to electricity and then bring down the cost of electricity. We are doing all we can to break the link with gas; that is absolutely critical. Electricity bills have gone up in the last two price caps because of our exposure to fossil fuels. That is affected by a war thousands of miles away that we had no part in.

We are already making progress. A few years ago, 90% of the electricity price was set by gas. The figure is now 60%, and is going down all the time, but we have much more to do on that. Evidence from the past few months has shown that the people who are being supported to take up heat pumps or solar panels are off-grid households, which face the impact of heating oil prices. They have taken up those opportunities. The public are behind us on this; we just need to make it as straightforward as possible. That is what the warm homes plan will deliver.

[Douglas Lumsden (Aberdeen South) (Con)]

Like Mr Speaker, I was angry and frustrated to find that the Secretary of State was not making the statement. I first learned that the Secretary of State was in my constituency when I saw her on TV this morning; that is being completely disrespectful to another Member.

The decision on Jackdaw is a victory for common sense. It is also a victory for the voters of Aberdeen South, who sent a clear message to this Labour Government in what was the most important by-election this year. Will this decision streamline the process for other North sea developments? We need a pipeline of projects coming through to protect jobs and to keep the lights on.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Shanks]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. As a fellow by-election MP, I can agree with the hon. Member that we need to dine out on our by-elections as much as we can; he was quite right to raise that.

The hon. Member is right about the process. I will not comment on timelines for upcoming decisions, but over the past two years, we have put in place a process to allow consideration of scope 3 emissions and consultation on that, and then to get the consenting decisions back into the process. That has all now been done, so now, the process will be just consideration of individual applications, rather than us having to go through all that again. Obviously, there is consideration to be given to upcoming consenting decisions. That consideration will be based on the evidence submitted, and not an artificial timeline.

The hon. Member talked about common sense. It is really important to make this point. The common-sense, pragmatic position for the future of the north-east of Scotland is to say, as I do, that oil and gas will continue to be important for a long time—I have been in Aberdeen often enough to know how important it is to the jobs there—but that must go hand in hand with us investing as much as we can in the long-term industries that will create jobs there. That is why I talked about decommissioning in my statement; there is a huge opportunity there for jobs and the supply chain in the north-east. I hope that we can get a bit more cross-party consensus, maybe not on everything to do with oil and gas, but on the need to invest in supply chains and industry, so that we can build the renewables of the future.

[Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister, and recognise how much time he takes to talk to the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee; he is barely ever out of the chair in front of us. He is very dedicated. Today’s decision is one that the Tories could not get over the line, but under this Prime Minister, a rapid decision has been made that will protect jobs and, critically, ensure that skills will be retained for a changing supply chain. Will the Minister confirm that the Government will continue with investment and equally rapid decision making for clean power projects?

[Michael Shanks]

I love my appearances before the Select Committee; I gently point out that other Ministers in the Department would love to come and give evidence as well. Nevertheless, I am happy to do so, and I always appreciate the conversations.

My hon. Friend is right. We moved as quickly as we could to put in place the process that responded to the Supreme Court judgment on Finch and the Court of Session judgment on these applications. We have done that, and we considered all the evidence to make this decision today. Whatever people’s views, the critical thing is that the decision can stand on its merits, and it was is right and proper that we took the time to get this right.

My hon. Friend’s broader point was right. The real prize of the energy transition, if we get it right, is tackling the climate crisis while creating jobs in every single part of the country. We have to do both. She is a fantastic champion of her community and of this industry. If we get this right, we will create the next generation of good, sustainable jobs for young people growing up today. They will not have a long-term career in oil and gas, but could have a good, long-term career in renewables, carbon capture, hydrogen and other areas. I hope that we can work together to make that a reality.

[Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

The Minister said in reply to the shadow Secretary of State that the delay in the decision on Jackdaw was fiscally neutral because, in essence, the investment was made at risk.

[Michael Shanks]

indicated dissent.

[Steve Barclay]

The Minister shakes his head, but he said that there was no cost from the delay. Does he accept that the delay in a decision on Rosebank comes at a cost, both in terms of investment and in terms of taxpayer revenue? If so, will he set out what that cost is, in revenue, ahead of the Budget?

[Michael Shanks]

Just to be clear, I said that there was no time delay because the projects were not ready to extract in any event. It is for the developer to speak to the details, but my understanding is that the Rosebank project is not ready to extract now, either. My point was that, although we had to retake the decisions made by the previous Government that were quashed by a court, the developer was allowed to continue the development of the project at its risk. That means that, now it has the consent, it is ready to extract by the end of this month. The Rosebank project is obviously subject to a separate regulatory process, which I will not comment on just now.

[Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)]

I welcome the Minister’s announcement and remind others that this is not just a question for the north-east or for Aberdeen South. There are only two postal code areas in the UK that do not have a jobs connection to the North sea, so despite the scant appearance of the Opposition Benches, this affects every constituency.

I welcome the £2 billion investment in the transition, because we need those skills, that workforce and that supply chain as stepping stones to the transition to new industries. I caution my hon. Friends to ensure that we are not remembered as the Government who let down the North sea workforce in the way in which the Conservatives let down the coalfield workers. May I ask the Minister to detail, and encourage him to rush through, the tiebacks and the decommissioning that will keep us in the North sea for years to come?

[Michael Shanks]

My hon. Friend’s point about postcodes is really important for us. I hope that through the transition we can collectively get to a similar place, where there is not a single postcode in the country that does not have jobs associated with clean energy. That is our aim in driving forward the supply chain investment and everything else.

My hon. Friend is right to centre the whole conversation on the workers. For 60 years, workers have done incredibly difficult and dangerous work in the North sea to bring energy ashore. I pay tribute to all of them, some of whom lost their lives in that process. It is our duty to ensure that there is a long-term legacy for that workforce in oil and gas, in decommissioning and in other technologies that we need to invest in now. That is the prize if we get it right—but, frankly, it is also our responsibility to that workforce now and the workforce of the future.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

Today is not a good day for any campaigner pressing for urgent action on climate change. I know that many of my Bath constituents—particularly young people—will be deeply concerned and disappointed. The Government have justified their position by saying that Jackdaw will create new jobs and boost growth. Will they clarify which jobs will boost growth? I do not mean jobs that rely on a Jackdaw worker buying a sandwich—anybody working in any sector can buy a sandwich—but jobs that will be directly created by Jackdaw and otherwise would not exist.

[Michael Shanks]

I am sorry; I am hurriedly trying to work out what the Lib Dems’ position is. I am sure that I will have clarity at some point. On the point about jobs—these are the developer’s figures—there are 27 direct jobs from the project, but it is also about safeguarding 273 existing jobs. It is actually about something much broader than that: it is about an industry that is in transition, and we have to do what we can to protect that industry while we build what comes next. I have been clear on that throughout my time as Energy Minister.

I gently say that we should accept that the wider economic impact of jobs does go down to the person buying a sandwich in the shop. When we see big industry leave towns—I am a Lanarkshire MP, and I know the impact of coalmine closures and steel closures in my constituency—we do see those small businesses leave and, with them, the important jobs that a community relies on. I do not think we should talk down the importance of the wider economic impact of this decision.

[Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)]

As a member of the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee, I have looked in detail at both Jackdaw and Rosebank. It is important that we in this House do not confuse the two. My main concern has always been the impact on carbon emissions of any gas taken from Jackdaw. Will the Minister tell me what impact Jackdaw gas will have on emissions? Will he reassure me that this decision will not have an impact on the speed or scale of the low-carbon energy transition?

[Michael Shanks]

I give my hon. Friend that assurance. The amount of gas that will come onshore into our UK supply is about 5% of our production—6% at the peak. We have a diverse range of suppliers from the UK continental shelf, from Norway and from LNG imports. This decision will not change the fact that the country became a net importer of fossil fuels 20 years ago, but it does play a part in the security of supply. That was part of the balancing act against the environmental considerations that my hon. Friend rightly notes. As I have said before, the determination made by the Secretary of State is that we are able to do that while meeting the climate objectives. I absolutely give my hon. Friend the assurance that the decision does not move us away at all from those commitments; in fact, the £2 billion committed from the revenues will help us turbocharge the investment in clean energy.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

I want the people who sell sandwiches in my constituency to have jobs, just the same as I want the people who work in the energy industry in my constituency to have jobs. Both types of job are important.

It is good to see the UK Government creating a future generations fund from North sea revenue. We have been calling for that for 50 years, so I am glad that they have finally got with the programme. Will the Minister provide reassurance, because we have not had any details of where that money will be spent? Will the money generated from North sea revenues in fields such as Jackdaw in Scotland go into renewables projects in Scotland? Will it support jobs in Scotland? Will it ensure that people in Aberdeen have their futures protected, or will it, like GB Energy, focus on delivering solar panels in England?

[Michael Shanks]

The hon. Lady speaks about 50 years; I am not quite sure what the SNP’s energy policy is right now. It changes from minute to minute, and it changes depending on whether the First Minister is in Aberdeen or somewhere else in the country. I cannot quite fathom it. The Scottish Government put out a statement today, which I read three or four times, and I still was not clear whether they support Jackdaw or not. The hon. Lady is a good supporter of the industry and I recognise that, but as for the rest of her party, I am not quite so sure.

The point about investment in renewables is important. We have been clear that the revenue from this project will be invested in renewables projects across the UK. For the vast majority of those, we are already seeing the investment going into Scotland, in supply chains as well as in the infrastructure itself. It is easy for the hon. Lady to talk down Great British Energy, but its headquarters in Aberdeen is already helping to deliver investment in supply chains in Scotland. That is £1 billion of investment so that we are not towing in renewables infrastructure to the “Saudi Arabia of renewables”, as the former leader of her party called it, that is all built somewhere else, but building it in Britain. That is where the jobs come from.

That is really important, and I hope we can all get behind this idea. I thought the hon. Lady’s party agreed that public ownership of energy is important, that public investment in energy is important and that the transition needs investment at every stage, so I hope that there are clearer areas for us to work together. However, as I say, we are still waiting on the SNP’s energy policy three years on, so I am not quite sure what it is at the moment.

[Frank McNally (Coatbridge and Bellshill) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend knows that actions have consequences, but so does inaction. Ultimately, the consistent failure of the Conservatives over many years to address the challenges in the North sea has seen 70,000 jobs lost. I welcome the statement, which was clearly focused on energy security and jobs. As my constituency neighbour, the Minister knows the importance of supply chain jobs in Lanarkshire, not just in oil and gas but in clean energy projects such as RES, which we both visited recently. Does he agree that the new £2 billion energy wealth fund represents a serious step towards supporting our transition effort and delivering high-quality jobs in Lanarkshire?

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Shanks]

I will always agree about high-quality jobs in Lanarkshire. It was a pleasure to visit my hon. Friend’s constituency to see the opening of the RES facility in Bellshill. It is an important example of a part of his constituency that will not have renewables projects directly deployed, but which can still get the jobs from the operations and maintenance of wind farms across Scotland, along with the jobs and apprenticeships being created as a result.

The jobs that go along with the energy transition are at the heart of the Government’s agenda to deliver reindustrialisation and growth in every postcode. For too long, Governments have been agnostic about where we build things and we have seen manufacturing capacity depleted in communities such as my hon. Friend’s and others right across the country. We are seeking to reverse that with the investments we are making and to get good jobs in every single part of the country.

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

At Prime Minister’s questions, the Prime Minister quite rightly said that if we do not use our own resources, we will only have to import oil and gas. The Minister, in his statement, rightly said that we will be reliant on oil and gas for many decades to come. Though today’s decision on Jackdaw, albeit late, is welcome, with the answers that the Prime Minister and the Minister gave earlier, the Minister surely has to agree that any delay on new oil and gas licences is damaging to the national interest.

[Michael Shanks]

I said in my statement that in the transition to clean energy, we will continue to need oil and gas. The UK continental shelf continues to be an important source of that, but we have been a net importer for more than two decades and no amount of consenting decisions will change that fact. It is important, however, and I have said that that 6% of production matters. That is why we have made the decision we have made today.

The important thing about pragmatism—I have said this a number of times—is that it has to work both ways. We previously had a consensus that oil and gas and renewables went hand in hand, in the transition to what comes next. The Conservatives built lots of renewables and now dismiss the fact that they are important to the system. I welcome the investment the previous Government made in renewables; it is just a shame that they have lost their way so much that they do not support it now.

[Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)]

The previous Tory Government blundered through an unlawful consent process, which required this decision to be reconsidered, unless we adopted the licence revocation policies of the Greens, which would have accelerated significant job losses and irrecoverably deindustrialised the north-east. Although I have previously opposed this project, the energy security situation has changed radically this year due to the significant consequences of the US and Israel’s illegal war in Iran. Will the Minister explain how that direct impact on our short-term energy security in the UK influenced the decision, and will he clarify exactly how many direct and supply chain jobs the decision supports?

[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.

[Elaine Stewart (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Lab)]

With everything going on in the world right now, having strong home-grown energy matters more than ever. Like many in this House, I have had a number of constituents across Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock reach out about energy security. Will the Minister elaborate on how today’s announcement helps the country move towards energy independence, and how that makes us stronger as a country?

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Shanks]

I had a great visit to my hon. Friend’s constituency recently to see the importance of solar panels in a project there. We need to see much more of that investment, because our energy sovereignty in the long term comes from us being able to produce the energy we need here in the UK. That means electrifying the economy and generating that electricity through a decarbonised power system, but the transition to get there, not least on heat and in industry, will still require gas for a long time to come—we, as a Government, have been clear on that from the beginning. We are not about turning off the taps in the North sea, so our energy security has to take both those directions at the same time: building the industry we need for the future now while ensuring that we have the supply we need for the here and now. The Government are focused on both.

[Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

We all want to secure the future employment prospects of those working in our world-leading oil and gas sector, and one of the richest possible opportunities for that is transitioning them into working in deep geothermal in constituencies such as mine across the country. However, despite repeated cross-party meetings with Ministers, going back years now, I am afraid that we are still billions and billions behind the money being invested in this technology in other parts of the world. Does the Minister agree that it would be crazy not to create a set-aside fund, from the money that has been announced today, that is purely dedicated to developing deep geothermal in our country?

[Michael Shanks]

The hon. Gentleman is a great champion of the industry, and I know that he does a huge amount on this. I agree with him entirely: geothermal is a huge opportunity and I know that there are projects starting to come much closer to delivery. We want to see much more of that, and I recognise there is more we need to do. I do not want to get into discussions on ringfences within the fund, because the danger is that that could hold back the money from projects that are ready to deploy, but I am certainly happy to speak to him about other projects and what more we can do.

[Alan Gemmell (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his statement and welcome this decision. People in Ayrshire are proud of the role that Scotland has played in powering our nation. Can he say a bit more about what the decision means for supply chain jobs in the North sea sector in Scotland and right across the country?

[Michael Shanks]

It is good to hear from the MP for my old home—he is my mother’s MP and a great champion for Ayrshire. Ayrshire has a critical role, and it could have an even more important role if we were to build new nuclear at Hunterston, which, if it were not for the objections of the SNP, we could be looking at much more seriously. He is right to point to the fact that there are huge opportunities around supply chain jobs. We have had a meeting at a port in his constituency to talk about the opportunities there. The real drive behind this is the clean energy transition for our energy security, but reindustrialisation off the back of that will create good jobs in every single part of the country. We need to dispel the idea that we cannot manufacture things in Britain and actually get back to building things in every single part of the country.

[Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)]

I want to be kind to the Minister, because I am sure he is still smarting from the verbal caning that he received from Mr Speaker earlier. I want to clarify that I welcome this decision, my constituents welcome this decision and the Scottish Government’s statement welcomes this decision. We also welcome the creation of the energy wealth fund—albeit 50 years too late, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) said earlier—but he will be aware that electricity bills are going to go up twice later this year. Can he give me a reassurance from the Dispatch Box today that he will accelerate the Government’s commitment to the Acorn project at St Fergus? Will he give me a commitment that he will accelerate the approvals for ScotWind projects, which are beside my constituency? Finally, will he give me a better answer than the one he gave my colleagues earlier: how much of this £2 billion will be spent for the benefit of the people of Scotland?

[Michael Shanks]

The hon. Gentleman talks about needing to have set up wealth funds a long time ago. I probably would not disagree with him on much of that, but I would just point out that the Scottish Government have the ScotWind fund, which they are currently drawing down to meet the deficit in their own spending. That is not building a legacy for the future; it is using it to paper over the cracks in the fiscal competence of the SNP Government. The hon. Gentleman might welcome this decision, but I am genuinely still not sure what the SNP’s position is more generally. Nevertheless, I welcome his support for it.

The hon. Gentleman is right to mention the Acorn project. He and I have had useful conversations about it, and the Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, my hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde and Renfrewshire West (Martin McCluskey), who is next to me on the Front Bench, is the Minister responsible for carbon capture, usage and storage now. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, a sales process is now going through, and we continue to be very supportive of that process. We have set aside funding to support the project.

The hon. Gentleman is also right to flag the question of approvals for projects. Some of that sits with us, but most of it at the moment is involved in a bottleneck on consenting decisions, which are the responsibility of the Scottish Government. I know I have done a bit of point scoring here, but in line with the problem solving driver for this Government, I would just say that I have a really good relationship with Stephen Gethins, the Scottish Government Energy Minister. We are working together on a lot of these things, but we need to get the consenting decisions made much more quickly so that projects can get out and get built.

[Lillian Jones (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)]

I welcome the Minister’s statement on approving Jackdaw. Particularly during the current global instability, it is going to help strengthen our energy security, and protect skills and jobs. More importantly, it will start supplying British households and businesses by the end of the month. Does he agree that if we are serious about energy security, decarbonisation and the faster roll-out of electrification, the SNP must rethink its ideological opposition to nuclear energy? It is a vital part of the energy mix to deliver reliable, low-carbon power for Scotland.

[Michael Shanks]

I agree with my hon. Friend. I have visited Torness and met the incredibly skilled workforce there. What I find difficult about the Scottish Government’s position on jobs in Scotland is that they are willing to completely turn their back on the skilled workers in nuclear power, who are going searching for jobs in nuclear projects in England or elsewhere, rather than supporting and nurturing those jobs in Scotland today. Never mind the fact that every single day of the week, Scotland’s energy security relies on the firm nuclear power coming out of Torness nuclear power station. We have to remove that ideological block, which is just an anti-science approach to technology. That will help us to get off fossil fuels and deliver clean power and incredibly good, well-paid jobs in Scotland, and I really hope the SNP will change its position.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

Do the Government now accept that the former Secretary of State for Energy and Net Zero got this important policy seriously wrong, and if so, why was he promoted to become Foreign Secretary?

[Michael Shanks]

I am tempted to say that it is certainly not a question for me, but I will answer the first part of the right hon. Gentleman’s question. To be really clear, we came into Government with a judgment by the Court of Session that quashed the decisions, which required us then to put in place a process that considered the scope 3 emissions as part of a consenting regime. We had to design that process, consult on it with industry, get to a place where it was a practical process and then consider the applications. We have done that, and we have done it as quickly as we possibly could.

[Alison Taylor (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)]

I welcome this decision. Can the Minister elaborate on why this pragmatic decision does not impact on the Government’s target to meet net zero by 2050?

[Michael Shanks]

The pathway to net zero by 2050 has to accommodate the fact that we will require oil and gas, one way or another, while we are in that transition. The choices open to the Government are to continue extraction from the North sea, which we will do with existing fuels and existing consented fields, or to import from other places. We are obviously importing from Norway, which has generally cleaner imports than anywhere else, but we also rely on LNG imports, which have a higher carbon intensity. The decision therefore involves a balancing act on how we deal with the requirement for oil and gas from different places, and the Secretary of State’s decision has been made after weighing up all the evidence on the fact that we are able to make this consenting decision within the boundaries of our legally set carbon budgets.

[Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

I do not know how many people in this place know this, but I used to work in the oil and gas industry—not for a holiday job, but for years on end. I worked at Kishorn, at Nigg, at Sullom Voe and in Aberdeen. I married, my wife and I brought up our three children in my hometown and my children went to my old school in Tain, so I suggest to the Minister that I am a living example of the good that oil and gas have brought to the highlands. My plea to the Minister and to His Majesty’s Government is that they do as much as they can to spread the benefits from today’s decision as far as they can into the highlands and all those communities that have gained so much from North sea oil.

[Michael Shanks]

It is a great pleasure to see the hon. Gentleman back and looking so well. He is genuinely an hon. Gentleman and it is always a pleasure to speak with him.

I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I suspect that there are lots of things that he could bring to this House from his long and experienced life. He is also a great champion of nuclear and the difference that made in his constituency, and I agree with him on this. It is helpful, of course, that he has taken the line much more closely of the leader of the Liberal Democrats, the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey)—I have done some research—who said:

“Jackdaw, I personally have always felt made sense because we’re going to need a lot of gas in the transition.”

So I think the Lib Dem position is actually to support today’s decision.

[Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)]

The facts are that approving Jackdaw will neither lower energy bills, nor bring thousands of jobs, and it certainly will not improve the UK’s energy security, but a Government-owned company shaping the new renewables industry and exercising market control over it certainly would. The Prime Minister has said that he wants to reindustrialise the country, and when he comes to Grangemouth to meet me and the local community, we very much look forward to hearing exactly how he plans to do that for the benefit of our town. People in Grangemouth are sick, tired and exhausted of empty promises. They do not want to hear any more about energy transition funds or sovereign wealth funds, because £200 million from the National Wealth Fund has still not been spent. My people and communities across Scotland need action now. Does the Minister realise that the Labour party is in danger of losing working-class communities through inaction?

[Michael Shanks]

Let me say to my hon. Friend, as I have said to him repeatedly, we regret the process that was underway when we came into government and the lack of planning for the workforce in his constituency. Contrary to what he says, we have in fact invested a significant amount of money in supporting that workforce to find alternative employment, and we are continuing to spend money on developing the projects that will take advantage of the £200 million from the National Wealth Fund. Unfortunately, I cannot magic those projects up out of thin air, so we are doing everything we possibly can to support them. We have set up Great British Energy as a publicly owned energy company. It is already investing in supply chains, in supporting the North sea transition, and in investing and taking a stake in the projects that we are supporting across the energy space and that will bring jobs to his constituency and across the country. I hope he will get behind some of the initiatives that the Government are driving forward.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I remind Members to think of each other and speed up their questions, so that we can get in as many people as possible.

[Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Reform)]

Time after time, the previous Energy Secretary stood in this House and told us that drilling in the North sea would not bring down domestic prices. Just today, the Prime Minister has stood at that Dispatch Box and said that prices will come down as a result of drilling in the North sea. Who is right: the former Energy Secretary or the Prime Minister? [Hon. Members: “No, he didn’t.] Yes, he did.

[Michael Shanks]

I am certain that the Prime Minister did not say that, because the truth is that although this decision is important for energy security reasons, it will do nothing to bring down prices. Prices are set on an international market, and no amount of extraction from the UK shelf will change the price—those are just the facts of the matter. It is important we do this. I say to the hon. Member and his party that we have never been a “turn off the taps” party in the North sea, but his party is for drilling for every last drop and ignoring the tens of thousands of jobs, in constituencies that it represents, that are currently relying on offshore wind and other technologies. He would turn his back on all those jobs, and it is absolutely shameful that his party would leave this country not more energy secure, but vulnerable at the very moment we should be building up our energy sovereignty.

[Richard Baker (Glenrothes and Mid Fife) (Lab)]

This decision will be welcomed by skilled energy workers across Scotland and the UK, who will have a key role in making our transition towards renewables successful. For that reason, a positive decision on Rosebank in the future would also be welcome. This project, though, will create and sustain some 300 skilled energy jobs. Will my hon. Friend assure me that he will work with the Scottish Government to ensure we have the right training in place for our energy workers for the future? Could some of the resources within the North sea wealth fund contribute to that aim?

[Michael Shanks]

My hon. Friend is right on his point about jobs, although I reiterate that direct jobs are often not the whole story with such projects, as there is a whole ecosystem around jobs. Skills is one of the most important things, and it is an area devolved to the Scottish Government. We have had a good partnership working on a lot of the transition support for workers. We have joint funded projects for North sea workers and will continue to do that because it is important that we match together the UK Government’s responsibilities with the Scottish Government’s responsibilities. Clearly, there is, however, a real issue in Scotland with the hollowing out of further education, which is the route for many of the skilled jobs we need in our economy, not least building the transmission system of the future, which needs highly skilled welders more than anything else. We need apprenticeships and further education, and I hope that the Scottish Government will invest even more in colleges across the country.

[Susan Murray (Mid Dunbartonshire) (LD)]

The Minister says officials are starting talks with industry leaders on refreshing the North sea transition deal. Will the Minister commit to putting money for retraining offshore workers, such as those in my constituency, at the core of that deal, funded by money from the new wealth fund?

[Michael Shanks]

I can give the hon. Member that assurance, but she does not need to wait on the new wealth fund; we have already committed funding to doing that. We published the North sea future plan, which charts a course for the future of the North sea, focused on not only oil and gas but the industries that come next and with the workers right at the centre of it. It is focused on how we provide the training support so that we can recognise the huge read-across from oil and gas skills into a lot of the other energy jobs and into defence and advanced manufacturing. We need to deploy those skills so that we can support workers the whole way through that process. We are already getting on with delivering it, and the North sea future jobs service should launch early next year.

[David Smith (North Northumberland) (Lab)]

I warmly welcome the statement, especially the word the Minister has used several times—pragmatism—and how that stands apart from the ideology we see, especially from the Green party. Does my hon. Friend agree that we cannot decarbonise our economy, make steps towards a fully renewable energy generation mix, or achieve energy security by relying on importing oil and gas from overseas, which is often more carbon intensive and which in some cases enriches authoritarian regimes such as Iran? Also, as the representative for North Northumberland where 14,000 households are off the gas grid, what more can his Department do to help heating oil and liquefied petroleum gas households to access less carbon-intensive products, such as hydrotreated vegetable oil?

[Michael Shanks]

Both are important questions. First, I recognise the point my hon. Friend makes around energy independence. We do require gas in the system at the moment, so this decision is partly around how we increase domestic production. But the long-term energy security and our energy independence do not come from oil and gas, which we will always be a net importer of at this point on, and so we have to build a way to get us off that fossil fuel rollercoaster in the future.

Secondly, my hon. Friend is absolutely right that off-gas-grid households have felt the significant impact of the war in the middle east as heating oil prices have skyrocketed. We very quickly put in place a fund to provide support for those households—much quicker than the previous Government did when Russia invaded Ukraine. I encourage all his constituents to ensure they have accessed that fund as people will be starting to refill tanks at this time of year, but we are also doing as much as we can to support, through the warm homes plan, the decarbonisation of those households who, of course, have access to the electricity grid and so can take advantage of solar panels, batteries and heat pumps, and we will say more about that in due course.

[Llinos Medi (Ynys Môn) (PC)]

Gas can help balance the grid, but if we are serious about energy security and decarbonisation, we need a clean and reliable source of baseload power—something the Jackdaw field cannot provide. Does the Minister agree that the Gwyndod nuclear project on Ynys Môn can help meet that need, and will he work with me to ensure its smooth delivery so that the energy security benefits can be realised as soon as possible?

[Michael Shanks]

It is a well-timed question because I am joining the hon. Lady in her constituency tomorrow to speak to some of the supply chain businesses that will help build the Gwyndod power station and to visit the site where Gwyndod will be built. It is an important example of where the last generation of nuclear power can turn into the next generation of apprentices in this new power station, with the grandchildren of people who worked at the Wylfa power station before. It is a huge opportunity, and I want to work with her and the Welsh Government on ensuring that we get as much economic opportunity from the Gwyndod project as possible with the supply chain jobs in her constituency and across Wales.

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

I know this is a difficult area to work in, not least because the Scottish Government do not yet know their policy on oil and gas drilling. Yesterday, The Scotsman reported that the Scottish Energy Minister has said it will take a year for them to reach a conclusion on that. I thank the Minister and the Secretary of State for their engagement with me. They were open to listening to my constituents’ many concerns about this decision. I hope my constituents are reassured that so much of the money from Jackdaw will be invested in renewables. However, to some extent, Jackdaw is just a sideshow because it is really Rosebank that many people are concerned about. Will the Minister confirm that despite media speculation, the decision today will not set a precedent for Rosebank and that it will be judged on its own merits or otherwise?

[Michael Shanks]

I agree with what my hon. Friend says about the importance of investing in renewables. On his broader question about consenting decisions, every single individual application is considered on its own merits, with its own evidence base and its own consultation process. The Rosebank decision is separate from the Jackdaw decision. We have concluded the evidence stage and the Secretary of State will make a decision in due course.

[Anna Sabine (Frome and East Somerset) (LD)]

Last week the Government declared severe drought across parts of Somerset. Experts suggest we need at least seven months of above average rainfall to recover from droughts across the country. There can be no question that we are in a climate emergency and the approval of Jackdaw shows that as a country we have not moved fast enough to switch to renewable energy. Do the Government agree that the only way we can stop depending on gas is to generate more of our own clean power? Will the Minister listen to the Liberal Democrats and implement our 10-year emergency home upgrade programme so that Britain is less dependent on projects like Jackdaw in future?

[Michael Shanks]

I agree with the hon. Lady absolutely that we are in a climate emergency. We all lived through a summer that demonstrated that more than anything we have seen. I have heard many people say it was the warmest summer on record, but in the future it will probably be seen to have been one of the coldest summers. We have to do something about that. I am fed up with hearing people say that we should just work on adaptation. We do have to work on adaptation, but we also have to do everything that we possibly can to stop the situation from becoming worse. That is why we are doing all that we can on an international level and why we are building renewables as quickly as possible. I agree with her that the cheapest energy for homeowners is the energy that they do not use, and that the more we can do to upgrade our homes in this country the better. That is what the warm homes plan is all about. By devolving it to local areas, they can make their own local choices about what works for them.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

I have been an enthusiastic supporter of the Government’s policy on developing alternative energy sources, successfully undertaken by the former Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Ed Miliband), and now incredibly skilfully developed by the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, my right hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Miatta Fahnbulleh). We always knew that there were three key decisions that would have environmental implications, politically and physically: today’s decision on Jackdaw; the decision on Rosebank; and the decision on the third runway at Heathrow. Will the Minister take into discussions with colleagues my concern that approvals in the decision-making process for Rosebank and/or a third runway at Heathrow, could permanently damage our environmental credentials?

[Michael Shanks]

I will not comment on future decisions, but the decision I am outlining today is clearly taking into consideration environmental impact, and all other decisions will do likewise. The Labour party has a proud record of passing the Climate Change Act 2008 and setting world-leading targets. For those who say that Britain should shrink from the world stage, those decisions have been hugely important for driving the transition to clean power in countries across the world. We are not alone in doing this and we have to do that even more. With consensus across the political divide, we cut emissions enormously. I was there at the closure of our last coal power station. We have made great progress, but there is a huge amount more to do to ensure we break the link with gas, to bring down people’s bills and to tackle the climate emergency, which is no longer some future threat but an ever-present reality.

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

I am grateful to the Minister for confirming that today’s decision on the Jackdaw gasfield will do nothing to reduce people’s bills. Many of the people I represent have done everything they can to reduce their heating use, but are still paying more than they can afford. Will he say more about the Government’s intention to look at removing standing charges from people’s gas bills?

[Michael Shanks]

We have heard loud and clear that the standing charge is the most frustrating part of the bill for people, because it is not driven by the individual choices they make about energy use but by a fixed price on the bill. The challenge with gas in particular is that we want people to use less, but there is little incentive to do that if the standing charge remains the same. I do not pretend it will be easy: the standing charge still has costs that have to be paid for and the gas network still has to be funded, but the Prime Minister has committed to working through how we can make the standing charge fairer and encourage people to make decarbonisation choices for affordability reasons. That is important for all of us and, crucially, it will bring down people’s bills.

[Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Minister will know that the climate science is clear that opening any new North sea oil and gasfields is incompatible with achieving our Paris climate agreement goal of limiting warming to 1.5°C. He will know that Jackdaw alone is worth 35 million tonnes of carbon dioxide, and Rosebank a further 250 million tonnes. What can he say to my constituents in Walthamstow who are still clearing up after the wildfires that burned down their homes and damaged their houses, and are now terrified about flooding from El Niño, about how this decision, our work on reducing emissions and the fund that he has mentioned will help to protect their future?

[Michael Shanks]

I hear what my hon. Friend says. On her last point, we are absolutely seized of the fact that the wildfires and the impact that heatwaves have had on people’s lives is evidence enough, if anyone ever needed it—I know she certainly does not because she has been a champion on this issue for a long time—that we have to take firm action on tackling climate change. That requires us to design a pathway to get to net zero that recognises the fact that we will need oil and gas as part of that transition, and that there are lower emissions coming out of the North sea than otherwise, but balancing that against significant investment, which must be made as quickly as possible, in renewables, nuclear and other technologies that help us get off the fossil fuels on which we are currently dependent. That is the only long-term pathway to energy security and to tackling the climate crisis, and we are doing everything we can to get there as quickly as possible.

[Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)]

There is consensus in the House that Jackdaw will benefit the good people of Aberdeen, but do absolutely nothing about the rising energy bills of millions of households up and down the country and provide absolutely no benefit for those facing winter fuel poverty. My concern is that the gas will be sold on the international market and the profits will flow to the energy tycoons, whose tax returns will be, let us say, very interesting. Will the Minister admit that the lobbyists have won over the Labour Government on this one? When will my constituents in Leicester South see any benefit to their energy bills?

[Michael Shanks]

I think the hon. Gentleman’s constituents will be very surprised when they reach to turn on their heating or their gas cooker that they do not rely on gas—a significant number of his constituents will rely on gas. We want to get off that gas supply as quickly as possible, but we will continue to require it for a number of years, so I hope that he can recognise why the decision is important for energy security. I agree with him about the fundamental point: contrary to any other noise around this, no new oil and gas drilling will ever take a penny off bills. It does not impact bills. It brings in tax revenue to the Government that we will invest in the clean energy that gets us off fossil fuels. Breaking the link with gas will bring down his constituents’ bills, but I agree that it will not directly reduce bills.

[Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)]

My main concern is for working people—working families and working communities. As a former coalminer, I witnessed the promises from Government with regard to a just transition, which failed, in every measure, to materialise. The devastation to communities that had their hearts ripped out is a testament to that failed transition, and we still bear the scars. I welcome the Government’s commitment to invest revenues in a just transition, but communities and workers in the oil and gas industry need cast-iron guarantees of secure jobs in renewables, with comparable wages, terms and conditions. Will the Minister meet me and others who share experiences of failed transition so that we can help to develop a road map that delivers a genuinely fair future for workers and working communities?

[Michael Shanks]

I am always happy to meet my hon. Friend and any other hon. Members from across the House who have experience that they want to raise or ideas about how we can do this. I chair the North sea future board, which has trade unions at its heart to bring the story of workers to the heart of the decisions we are making, not just because we owe that to those workers, who are powering the country right now and have done for decades, but because they are the critical workforce that will help us build what we need in the future. He is right to point to failed transitions—we will all have experience of that in our communities, but some more than others. There is a lesson from history that if Government do not actively engage in building the next part of the transition, we will not support those workers. We are doing everything that we can on that, but there is a lot more that we can do and I am happy to work with him on it.

[Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)]

My colleagues and I have consistently called for electricity prices to be decoupled from the wholesale gas price. The Minister has accepted that approving more domestic gas production will not in itself protect households from international price shocks, but doing that might. Will he accelerate the decoupling? Can he offer a timetable in which he will do that?

[Michael Shanks]

The hon. Lady is right to point to that fact. We have renewables in the system, but we are not getting the benefit of the pricing, because the last margin unit that we need in order to meet our supply is often gas. That used to be 90% of the time, but it is now less than 60% of the time. We are making huge progress; since the closure of the strait of Hormuz, we have been saving £50 million or more a day on displaced gas costs, because of the renewables that we have built. We are going as fast as we can, but I cannot just pull a lever and make decoupling happen, because the marginal price setting is important to ensure that we can meet our supply every single day. We are doing everything that we can on that issue. It is a No. 1 priority to ensure that people feel the benefit of clean power coming through on to their bills.

[Cat Smith (Lancaster and Wyre) (Lab)]

In an earlier answer, the Minister talked about the fact that the summer we have just experienced has been the hottest on record, but we fear that it may look cold in comparison with what is to come in the future. As a response, a lot of my constituents are becoming very engaged with issues of the environment. I have held several MP eco-forums, and attendance at them is going up week by week. My next forum is in the next two weeks, and I can predict a question that will be put to me, so I hope that the Minister can help me by giving me the answer on the Floor of the House. What does today’s decision mean for the UK’s leadership on the global stage when it comes to tackling climate change?

[Michael Shanks]

I will say two things. First, we are absolutely clear that tackling the climate crisis is an absolute priority for the Government. It is vital for our national security, our energy security and our children’s futures, and we need to do even more. This decision is about the transition period, in which we will need oil and gas to build into where we go next, but that is not the whole story. The absolute clear direction from this Government is that in order to tackle the climate crisis, we have to break the link with fossil fuels so that we are not importing from other countries and driving up climate problems for future generations to deal with, but have home-grown, clean energy here in the UK. We are already making enormous progress on that. People should rightly feel that the Government have to do more, but one of the really important things to recognise is that we are making progress in climate action. We always need to do more, but people should not feel that there is absolutely no route out for us. If we can work together and build some more consensus, we can tackle climate change.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for his statement, and I welcome the decision to approve the consent for Jackdaw gas production, which will secure energy supplies for homes and businesses across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland at a time when global conflict is putting pressure on energy prices. In a reply to another hon. Member, the Minister referred to the renewables sector benefits that will be used for all the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Will the Minister specifically outline the benefits that will come to Northern Ireland and help it to reduce its energy costs?

[Michael Shanks]

I often have to start with the refrain that energy policy is devolved to Northern Ireland, but there are points to make on two fronts. First, our interconnector with Ireland, which takes gas from Great Britain into Ireland, will benefit from the security of supply that we are delivering through this decision, which is important. Secondly, although I do not have responsibility for decisions on energy policy in Northern Ireland, we have said from the beginning that the National Wealth Fund and Great British Energy will operate and invest in projects in Northern Ireland. I can confirm that the £2 billion we have set up today will be part of that picture and ensure that we can invest in projects in Northern Ireland.

[Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)]

The decision on Jackdaw has been taken in the context of communities across the country meeting to watch screenings of the “National Emergency Briefing” on climate change. The briefing has been prepared by scientists, and I have not heard any credible dissent on the science in the film. It would be very difficult to watch the film and conclude, for example, that drilling in the Rosebank oilfield should be allowed to go ahead. What are the Government doing to ensure that there is a comprehensive and effective approach to public education on climate change so that everyone across our country has an accurate, science-based understanding of the peril that it brings?

[Michael Shanks]

That is a really important question. As a former teacher, I used to teach pupils who would come to school worried about this issue, because they had seen things in the news and felt a sense of threat. That is why it is important that people understand that the Government are taking the issue seriously and are determined not to only tackle climate change at home, but to play our international role abroad, rebuilding some of the international consensus to make climate action a reality.

Factual information is always really important in these debates—at times, I think that it might help in this House as well. People should seek out information about what we are trying to do and about the progress that we are making as a country towards decarbonising our energy system.

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

I am incredibly disappointed in today’s decision on Jackdaw; I believe that it flies in the face of all the evidence and will do nothing to lower people’s energy bills, create jobs or improve our energy security. The Minister has a strong record in making the case for Britain to be a renewable energy superpower, so can he confirm that today’s decision in no way implies or means that the approval of Rosebank will automatically follow?

[Michael Shanks]

Let me be clear that that is a separate consenting decision. I am not making any comment at all today on the Rosebank decision, which will be made in due course. We are absolutely committed to tackling climate change. There is no change at all in my commitment or the Government’s commitment to delivering the clean power mission and improving homes so that we can get off fossil fuels as quickly as possible, but the reality is that Britain will need oil and gas for decades to come as part of that transition. Today’s decision is about a particular project that helps us to get those things out of our own continental shelf. My hon. Friend is right to say that that will not bring down bills, but it will provide energy security benefits, jobs and investment coming in through tax receipts, which we are deploying to deliver more clean power.

[Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab/Co-op)]

I warmly welcome this statement from my hon. Friend and the focus on investment, jobs and resilience not just in the North sea, but in all parts of the United Kingdom. He will know the critical role that Peterborough plays in our national gas networks, having visited the gas transmission and compression site last November to welcome the £870 million investment that National Gas made in the network and in my city. Alongside me, on that visit he also met GMB representatives and apprentices—people I often listen to when it comes to energy policy. Will he join me in thanking GMB members across the country for their commitment and their contribution to the energy debate? Will he confirm that workers will be critical to any future discussions about our energy balance and how we get the mix right for the future?

[Michael Shanks]

I declare an interest: I am a member of the GMB, and I am very happy to celebrate the role that it plays in this area. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the matter of National Gas and the transmission system, because we often talk about oil and gas workers offshore, but I have met a number of those workers who help to get the gas to homes and businesses across the country. It is an incredibly skilled job, and I pay tribute to the work that those workers do. He is absolutely right; during the transition between what is here now and what comes after in the oil and gas industry, workers have to be right at the centre.

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

I know that many people across Portsmouth will welcome today’s measured and responsible announcement; at a time of global instability, energy security is crucial to our national resilience. Home-grown energy is better for Britain, because we can attach strong environmental conditions to it and use tax receipts from it to fund renewables. Can the Minister say a little more about how he plans to make energy independence a key part of our national resilience plan? Will he also say that today’s announcement will not affect our warm homes plan or slow the pace on our path to clean power for all?

[Michael Shanks]

My hon. Friend is right to raise the issue of national resilience. That is front and centre in my mind as the Minister responsible for energy security and resilience, particularly as we go into the winter months. This decision is part of how we ensure that we can absolutely meet the standard that is expected for our gas supplies as we go into the winter—we will say more about that in the coming days.

This decision is also part of the wider picture of the transition, because our long-term energy security and resilience cannot come from our being dependent on a fossil fuel that we will always be a net importer of. We have seen the price spikes that have been caused by a war in which we have no part, and they are affecting people’s bills right now. The long-term answer is the clean power that my hon. Friend talked about. She is right to raise the point about warmer homes and how we get more homes to use less energy. That is absolutely critical for our consumers to live in warmer conditions and to spend less on their energy bills.

[Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)]

The Government claim that approving Jackdaw will help fund clean energy—making them, if you like, both the arsonist and the firefighter. The North sea is a declining basin, though, meaning that it is a rapidly shrinking tax base. The Office for Budget Responsibility expects the North sea to provide just £100 million in tax per year by 2030. At that rate, the oil and gas sector would take 20 years to match the Government’s injection into the energy wealth fund today, so does the Minister see that approving Jackdaw is a false economy?

[Michael Shanks]

My hon. Friend is right that the North sea is a declining basin—I have said that on a number of occasions. That is not going to be turned around by decisions that we make, but none the less, we were elected on a manifesto that very clearly said that we would

“not issue new licences to explore new fields”,

but would manage existing fields for their lifetime. This decision is on an already licensed field, so it is compliant with our manifesto, and the investment resulting from it will allow us to build the clean power that will get us off fossil fuels. It is about recognising that we have to do both—the long-term future comes from reducing our dependence on fossil fuels and phasing them out completely, but we will need oil and gas in the interim.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I agree with the Minister about the price spikes and the rollercoaster of oil and gas, but I am concerned by his talk about coming off oil and gas. As he knows, some sectors in this country, whether they be glass, metal, cement or, of course, ceramics, are always going to have to use gas because there are no alternatives. With the Minister talking about how this decision will not bring down industrial gas prices, and with the Government having decided to exclude gas-intensive industries from the British industrial competitiveness scheme and supercharger schemes, what are this Government going to do to make sure that those industries that are dependent on gas and are crucial to our reindustrialisation get the help and support they need?

[Michael Shanks]

My hon. Friend is right to raise that point, and I know that my right hon. Friend the Business Secretary hears it. We are doing everything we can on industrial prices as well as domestic prices, but I know we need to do more. Breaking the link between gas and electricity prices is crucial for the electricity bills that those industries face, but I know that my hon. Friend is particularly focused on the gas they use. I have talked about phasing out gas; we have always been clear that a strategic reserve will be necessary for particular industries and parts of the power system, but we should be using it much less. We need to support industries by finding new ways to decarbonise, be it with hydrogen or other fuels, but some will continue to require gas. I recognise that fact, and will continue to work with my hon. Friend and others to make sure we are doing everything we can to support those industries.

[Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)]

I welcome the Government’s pragmatic decision on Jackdaw; it makes sense to use gas from the North sea, rather than import it from abroad. I also welcome the Minister’s comment that the funds it raises in tax revenue will be used to support the green transition, hopefully with a view to bringing down energy bills in the future. However, my constituents know that their energy bills will go up in January, and they want help with that now. Given that the Minister has ruled out using those funds to support them through direct help with their energy bills, can I encourage him to use any mechanism available to him to get people the support they need with their energy bills in January, and possibly to have conversations with the Treasury too? As he knows, the cost of living crisis is biting now.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Shanks]

My hon. Friend is right—the affordability crisis is the No. 1 thing facing all our constituents. I am not going to cut across what the Chancellor may or may not say next week in his Budget, but I hear what my hon. Friend says. We have already taken action by removing VAT from electricity bills, as well as the £150 of costs that we took off bills previously, but the first point he made is critical, because the situation in the middle east is what is driving up everyone’s bills. We can continue to take action to reduce those bills, as the previous Government did when Russia invaded Ukraine, but if we do not fix the fundamental problem, we will have to bail people out every time there is another fossil fuel price spike. While deploying clean power will not immediately affect everyone, every wind turbine we switch on and solar panel we plug in helps reduce our dependence on gas and brings down people’s bills.

[Henry Tufnell (Mid and South Pembrokeshire) (Lab)]

I congratulate the Minister on backing British industry in the North sea, but as he knows, industrial communities such as mine in Pembrokeshire face existential threats from high energy costs and high carbon costs. What measures are the Government taking to support good, unionised, well-paid jobs and industry right across the country?

[Michael Shanks]

I welcome my hon. Friend’s appreciation of the decision we have made today. The longer-term impact of climate change will be felt by his constituents as much as everyone else’s, so it is in all of our interests—as I know he appreciates—for us to take action to tackle it. While this is an important decision, the action we have taken to deploy clean power and break the link with fossil fuels is also really important.

My hon. Friend is right to centre this discussion on jobs. We have worked not just to create new jobs in the clean power of the future, but to make sure those are good jobs. With offshore wind, for example, we are making sure there is fair work for offshore workers, in conjunction with trade unions and the workforce. We want to grow the number of jobs in clean power, but we also want them to be good, well-paid and sustainable jobs.

[Chris Ward (Brighton Kemptown and Peacehaven) (Lab)]

I am concerned about the message this decision sends about how serious we are about tackling the climate emergency and protecting our hard-won international reputation as a world leader on climate change. However, I am even more concerned—as are my constituents—that this is a prelude to the bigger decision on Rosebank that is to come. Can the Minister confirm that when that decision is taken, the climate emergency and our international climate commitments will be at the forefront of his mind, and that we will have a chance to debate that decision in this House?

[Michael Shanks]

On the international point and the message this decision sends about the climate emergency, I cannot be clearer about how central tackling climate change still is to the wider agenda of our energy policy. The transition to a non-fossil-fuel economy will require oil and gas for decades to come, and this decision is about where we get that from, not about the end goal, which is to remove our exposure to fossil fuels in the long term. We continue to take action on the climate crisis in a whole range of other ways. For instance, the Secretary of State will lead our delegation to COP to make sure we continue to press for international collaboration.

On the wider point, consenting decisions are regulatory decisions for the Secretary of State to make, and then it is for the North Sea Transition Authority to make the final decision and issue the consent. Those decisions are not subject to debates in this House—they are quasi-judicial decisions. However, I can absolutely assure my hon. Friend that that decision, like this one, will be based on a whole range of factors, and the environmental impacts will be absolutely central.

[Josh Dean (Hertford and Stortford) (Lab)]

I hear what the Minister says, but a generation of young people are growing up in the shadow of a growing climate crisis. Countless constituents have written to me setting out their concern—a concern that I share—about this decision and a potential decision on Rosebank. Can the Minister say more about how the energy wealth fund will support this Labour Government’s mission to tackle the climate crisis and drive net zero? What can he say to reassure my constituents, many of whom are coming to my climate and nature town hall at the end of this month?

[Michael Shanks]

I am glad that people across the country are engaging in those kinds of discussions. It is really important that people get together, discuss this issue and recognise the absolute centrality of climate change to our lives right now, as well as its future impact. I would say two things: first, this Government take the climate emergency very seriously and are taking action right now to tackle it, whether that is building the clean power that gets us off fossil fuels or improving homes so that people use less fossil fuel energy to heat them.

Secondly, young people right now should believe that their Government are taking this issue seriously. Despite the noise of the political debate, this Government take climate action seriously, and we are delivering good, long-term jobs in every single community for those young people in the industries of the future—jobs in clean energy that we as a country can be equally proud of. I hope the young people who attend my hon. Friend’s meeting will see some of those opportunities as a real chance, not only for a career in this country, but to help us tackle the climate emergency.

[Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Lab)]

Today’s decision feels like a backwards step in our efforts to reduce carbon emissions and our reliance on fossil fuels, but one of our biggest challenges is the £88 billion-worth of UK pensions that are invested in this dying market—some 10 times what those funds invest in clean energy sources. What pressure is the Minister bringing to bear to wean our pension funds off those damaging fossil fuel investments?

[Michael Shanks]

As a Government, we are making it as attractive as possible to invest in clean energy sectors. That is why we have seen more than £100 billion-worth of private investment in the clean energy transition since we came into Government—£110 billion of investment in two and a half years. It is clear that people see the clean energy transition as a route for investment and helping to build our energy security. I would say to all those, pension funds or others, who do not take the economic opportunity seriously that there is a huge opportunity here to build the country we want to see and to get good economic returns as a result. We have set up things such as the National Wealth Fund and Great British Energy to help crowd in that investment.

[Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)]

It is not quite the response to catastrophic climate change, wildfires and drought that I had in mind, but I accept that that appears to be a minority view in this place. Nevertheless, despite all the sophistry, the inconvenient truth remains that this choice means that more fossil fuels that are currently buried will be extracted and burned to pollute our planet. Does the Minister understand why so many people find it hard to believe that the hope of a liveable planet will win out against short-termism and deluded self-interest?

[Michael Shanks]

I do not agree with that, actually. I will give the same answer that I gave to the Green party. We absolutely believe in tackling the climate crisis and in building our way out of a dependence on fossil fuels, but I cannot just click my fingers and make that happen overnight. We have to build this infrastructure over time, and there is a transition period in which gas will remain the main source of energy for people heating their homes. We have to move even faster to change that by electrifying heating to bring down people’s bills and get us off fossil fuels. I am open to any ideas my hon. Friend might have on how we can go faster on that.

[Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

I warmly welcome this decision. New drilling in the North sea is good for energy security, national security and jobs, including jobs in my constituency of Hartlepool and in the supply chain. Jobs in Hartlepool have been created in new nuclear and renewables, too. Does it frustrate the Minister, as it frustrates me, when certain populist politicians put their ideology ahead of fact and would destroy jobs in renewables, nuclear and North sea oil and gas in my constituency and across the country?

[Michael Shanks]

I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. I am grateful for his putting on record the fact that there are jobs in oil and gas in Hartlepool and in towns like it across the UK. Although there is a concentration of jobs in the north-east of Scotland, it would be wrong to say that this is a problem for the north-east of Scotland to solve. There are such jobs all across the country. We must get this transition right.

As for the oil and gas workers, the new nuclear that we want to see in his constituency, and renewables, I make the point that the workforce is the same, and we are going to support them to retrain and bring their immense experience into what we have to build in the future. It is in our self-interest to centre this transition on the workers who currently power the country through oil and gas and who will take us through into the future. He is right to call out those politicians who talk about pragmatism, but who want it all to be one way. Pragmatism means being clear that oil and gas will be important for decades to come and that we have to invest now in the jobs of the future, in his constituency and across the country.