Rosebank and Jackdaw Oilfields
Debate between Michael Shanks and Luke Murphy(1 week, 6 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Michael Shanks
I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is one of the Scottish National party cohort seeking to move to our other Parliament, but the SNP’s position in Holyrood is the same as ours, which is that we must be cognisant of climate change obligations with regard to any new licences. Perhaps he has a different position from his colleagues in Holyrood—I am not sure—but the SNP recognises, rightly, as we do, that the future requires investment in oil and gas for many years to come, to which we are committed, and that investment must match our climate obligations. The transition that is now under way must have Government at its heart, supporting the jobs and industries that come in the future. If the hon. Gentleman supported some of the investment that we propose, such as at Great British Energy in Aberdeen, instead of deriding it at every single turn—[Interruption.] Mr Speaker, I have again united all the Members of Parliament from north-east Scotland who oppose investment in their own constituencies. If the hon. Gentleman supported that investment, maybe he would see the jobs of the future coming.
Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)
Under the previous Government, thousands upon thousands of jobs were lost in the North sea, energy bills hit record highs and the Government put Britain’s energy security in the hands of Vladimir Putin. Having made a patently unlawful decision on Rosebank, the Conservatives are lecturing us on energy policy. The truth is that our clean energy mission will deliver the jobs and economic growth of the future, our commitment to climate action and lower bills. The Conservative party is stuck in the past. Will the Minister remain focused on the future and deliver our clean energy mission, which will deliver the economic and environmental benefits the public want to see?
Michael Shanks
As my hon. Friend says, the long-term future of our energy security in this country is not in oil and gas, as important a part as it will continue to play for many years to come. The clean power mission that we are driving forward at pace is about building home-grown renewable power that will deliver energy security in the long term, although oil and gas will continue to play an important part for many years to come, not just in our energy mix but in our country’s wider economic system. We will support the jobs and industries in north-east Scotland to ensure that transition is fair and prosperous for all.
Biomass Generation
Debate between Michael Shanks and Luke Murphy(1 week, 6 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Michael Shanks
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, although I would gently point out that the shadow Minister and I agree on a lot more than he likes to pretend—or I like to pretend, perhaps. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that we are aware of the importance of the jobs at this particular power station and in the supply chain, and we will be working with Drax on what that looks like. We are of course changing the role that Drax will use the power station in Selby for, and I will ensure that I have those conversations about the supply chain. I would be happy to speak to him more about that in due course.
Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)
The Minister should be commended for ending the terrible deal negotiated by the previous Conservative Government, which led to higher bills, excess profits and poor sustainability standards, but it is worth saying again that there seems to be no end to the Conservatives’ rank hypocrisy on energy policy. In government, the then Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, the right hon. Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho), signed off planning consent for the Drax carbon capture project, saying that
“the public benefits…outweigh the harm.”
The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie), has now come to the Dispatch Box to decry the costs, while the right hon. Member for East Surrey also opposes Drax. Has the Minister considered capturing the burning hypocrisy of Conservative Members, because it seems to be a truly inexhaustible resource?
Michael Shanks
My hon. Friend makes the point for me. He forgets, of course, that the Conservatives are under new management, so it is all fine—we just forget everything that happened in the last 14 years and move on. Of course, we have had to pick up the pieces from the last 14 years, and while the Conservatives will not take responsibility for those decisions, we have grasped the challenges and are moving forward as quickly as possible.
The truth is that not only did we inherit an energy system without the long-term planning it should have, but Drax did not have a deal that was good for the climate, good for energy security or good for the hard-working people of this country, who paid year after year for the subsidies that the previous Government negotiated. We have halved the subsidy every year, putting money back into people’s pockets and, of course, making sure that any excess profits come back to the Exchequer.
Gas Storage Levels
Debate between Michael Shanks and Luke Murphy(1 month, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Michael Shanks
That is the kind of extremist scaremongering that we have come to expect from the shadow Secretary of State on Twitter, but we are now hearing it in the House. It is thoroughly irresponsible to use such language. In my answer, I read the very clear view of the National Energy System Operator, which runs the system and is the expert. I repeat it for the benefit of the House:
“At no point were electricity supplies less than anticipated demand and our engineers were able to rebalance the system without the need to consider emergency measures.”
The shadow Minister and Back-Bench MPs can repeat the phrasing around blackouts all they like, but at no point was that a concern. The reality is that while the Conservatives are happy to throw around such phrases without any evidence, we are building the resilient system of the future, and we will get on with doing that.
Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)
In government, the Conservatives saw the closure of Rough and reduced gas storage. In opposition, they oppose our proposals for clean power, and would see this country more reliant on volatile gas markets and higher energy prices. Is it not the truth that the Conservatives want us more reliant on gas, with higher bills and more likelihood of blackouts, because they oppose our plans for clean power and tackling runaway and accelerating climate change?
Michael Shanks
The decision on whether to run gas storage sites is a commercial one for Centrica. The storage site at Rough was closed between 2017 and 2022—hon. Members may remember that that was when the “beast from the east” was attacking the country. The previous Government will have to answer for the decisions that they made on that. We are making it clear that the only way to build the energy system that we need in the long term is the clean power action plan. The Conservatives used to support much of that but, increasingly, they have decided to walk away from it. They will either keep us attached to the volatile fossil fuel markets, with all the price spikes that our constituents continue to pay the price of, or they will have to come up with an alternative plan. We are getting on with doing the work.