Jackdaw Gasfield

Debate between Michael Shanks and Euan Stainbank

Wednesday 21st October 2026 Commons Chamber

[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.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Michael Shanks and Euan Stainbank

Tuesday 2nd June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)]

T3. My constituents Gillian and Ross worked at INEOS Olefins & Polymers, and started retraining in 2024, following the announcement in 2023 that the Grangemouth refinery would close. However, they were recently denied support, due to limits on the Grangemouth workers training guarantee. Will the Government, alongside the Scottish Government, review the Grangemouth workers training guarantee, so that support can be extended to workers like Gillian and Ross?

[The Minister for Energy (Michael Shanks)]

I thank my hon. Friend for all the work he has done to support the workers from Grangemouth. I wrote to him earlier this week on the case of his two constituents. The training fund was set up to provide that support. We will continue to look at it, and I am happy to meet him to discuss it further.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Michael Shanks and Euan Stainbank

Tuesday 18th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Michael Shanks]

I have always appreciated my engagement with the hon. Lady on these questions. The cumulative impact of applications is covered by the planning system, which considers all those impacts, but the hon. Lady is right to suggest that the land use framework and the strategic spatial energy plan are about taking a more strategic approach to the way in which we look at where such projects are sited. As for the question of community benefits, we have consulted on that and will say more shortly, but our general view as a Government is that communities should benefit from hosting infrastructure, particularly solar, which has often not produced the same community benefits as other infrastructure.

[Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)]

Last month the Energy Minister stated that the £200 million investment in Grangemouth from the national wealth fund that was secured by Scottish Labour Members has brought private investment to the table. Does he agree that we need an anchor industry in Grangemouth with a scale and skills profile similar to those of the former oil refinery, and that we also need the Government to take a partial stake and to make an announcement, this side of Christmas, on the direction of Grangemouth’s industrial future?

[Michael Shanks]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who has worked extremely hard with the Government and with the national wealth fund to ensure that we are bringing projects forward. More than 100 projects came forward for that £200 million investment by this Labour Government through the wealth fund; we are considering all of them, and hope to make announcements soon. However, as my hon. Friend will understand, given the substantial amounts of public money involved, we must ensure that due diligence in respect of all those businesses and projects is complete before we can make any announcements.