Rosebank and Jackdaw Oilfields
Debate between Michael Shanks and Sammy Wilson(1 week, 6 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Michael Shanks
My hon. Friend’s point about investor confidence is important. Investors lost all confidence in this country under the previous Government; not quite knowing who was going to be in No. 10 or No. 11 at any given moment certainly did not help investor confidence. We are building back that confidence, and have already seen tens of billions of pounds in investment since we came to power, and 70,000 new jobs.
It matters that this country takes a leadership role on climate, because the transition that we want to deliver here is also being delivered right across the world. The country with the fastest transition to clean power last year was China. In some cases, Members of this Parliament are trying to row back on our net zero commitments. We are determined to double down on those commitments, because that is the best way to deliver stability and energy security, bring down bills and create the industrial future and jobs that this country needs.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
Hardly a day passes in this place when Ministers do not tell us how broke the country is, yet here we have a Minister who cannot give a commitment to extracting the liquid gold that lies under this country, although it could generate jobs and tax revenue, give us energy security and reduce the import bill. Is it not a fact that the court judgment has driven a hole through the growth strategy, because due to the legal targets for CO2 reduction that we have set, every major infrastructure project in this country will be legally challengeable, and could be turned down on the basis that it generates CO2?
Michael Shanks
The reason we are in this situation is that the Court ruled that the previous Government made an unlawful decision by not taking into account the judgment of the Supreme Court. That is not me saying that from a policy perspective; it is the Court saying that, and we are now moving as quickly as possible to put in place a process that gives confidence to industry and allows applications to come forward. We have said that oil and gas will continue to play an important role for many years to come. We will not revoke existing licences, and therefore it is open for applications for projects to come forward, which will be considered on their individual merits.
However, the right hon. Gentleman and I will always disagree on the fundamental point that tackling climate change is in all our interests. Right around the world, we see the impact of not tackling climate change. It is a clear and present danger to our country and our national security, and we will tackle it.
Biomass Generation
Debate between Michael Shanks and Sammy Wilson(1 week, 6 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Michael Shanks
My hon. Friend is right that this is a good deal, in the short term, to ensure security of supply into the early-2030s, which was key to NESO’s advice on the basis of security of supply. In the process, however, we have sought to halve the subsidy that Drax was given by the previous Government and deliver on the sustainability criteria, taking that from 70% to 100%. This is a good deal for the people of this country.
My hon. Friend also touched on the important work we need to do in the broader energy space to deliver energy security. That is why clean power 2030—our sprint to deliver decarbonised power—is so important, delivering good jobs in supply chains across the country.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
This statement should be a warning to all those across the House who are cheerleaders for renewable energy. Let us not forget that, in 2010, Drax power station was the poster boy for green energy policy. Of course, it turned out that instead of green energy, it has produced more CO2. We have chopped down natural habitat 3,000 miles away to bring it and burn it in a power station in England, and consumers pay the grand total of £1,000 million a year for the pleasure of doing so.
The Government have not learnt from that lesson. Only this year, we have had a similar mistake made with wind energy, where the Government have given a subsidy six times what the price of gas would be. Will we find a Minister in 15 years’ time standing again at the Dispatch Box to apologise for a waste of public money, high electricity prices and environmental disaster?
Michael Shanks
After an urgent question and a statement, I hope that I will not still be standing here in 15 years’ time, and I suspect the House will support that. Let me be really clear. I do not remember Drax being the poster child for the clean energy transition. I have outlined clearly why this decision is important in terms of energy security, but we wish that we as a Government had had more options. Unfortunately, those options were not there, so we have made the best of a difficult situation to get an incredibly good deal that delivers value for money, improves sustainability and delivers on energy security. In the 2030s, I want to see our clean power system delivering cheaper bills and industrial manufacturing jobs across the country. I hope that, in 15 years, the right hon. Member and I will have a conversation about how that is delivering for our constituents.
Gas Storage Levels
Debate between Michael Shanks and Sammy Wilson(1 month, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Michael Shanks
I take issue with two of those points. First, in the past decade, 100,000 jobs have already been lost from the oil and gas industry, and that happened under a Government whom the hon. Gentleman supported. The industry is changing. We are putting in place a robust set of plans to help the workforce into the jobs of the future, rather than burying our heads in the sand and pretending that the basin in the North sea is not super-mature. Secondly, even if we were to extract more gas from our continental shelf, given that it is traded on an international market, and the pricing is set not by us but by the international market, we would continue to pay more for it, whether or not it came from the North sea, so that would not deal with the pricing issue reflected in the hon. Gentleman’s question.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
Did the Minister assume that after the Government had robbed pensioners of the winter fuel allowance, gas consumption would go down, or are this Government so obsessed with their net zero policy that they do not really care whether we have enough gas to meet our energy needs? Does the Minister not realise that being reliant on foreign suppliers will push up fuel prices in the UK? How does he justify the fact that under his net zero policy, the Government are ignoring the fact that we have 150 years-worth of gas naturally stored in the United Kingdom, and will not use it?
Michael Shanks
Let me repeat what I said a moment ago: even if we were to take much more gas from our continental shelf, it would still be traded on the international market. The reason why the right hon. Gentleman’s constituents and mine still face a cost of living crisis is our exposure to petrostates and dictators around the world. He would clearly like to expose us to them even more, and I think that the Conservatives would support him in that, but we want to get ourselves off the rollercoaster of volatile fossil fuels and deliver a clean power system that is cheaper in the long run and delivers energy security. That is what is best for consumers, and for all our constituents.