Jackdaw Gasfield

Debate between Scott Arthur and Michael Shanks

Wednesday 21st October 2026 Commons Chamber

[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.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Scott Arthur and Michael Shanks

Tuesday 13th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Michael Shanks]

I thank the right hon. Lady for what she said about carbon capture more generally. We are absolutely looking at alternatives for decarbonising hard-to-abate sectors. The Peak Cluster is not a Government-backed project; it is for the scheme to do all the community engagement. I have heard from many Members across the House that engagement has not been as good as it should be. I would encourage those at the cluster to ensure that it is as strong as it can be, and the project will obviously be subject to a planning application when it comes forward.

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

I want to return to Jackdaw and Rosebank. Last week, Jess from my office organised a showing of the “National Emergency Briefing”, which was very well attended. Afterwards, I do not think anybody I spoke to thought that Jackdaw or Rosebank should go ahead. I know the Secretary of State will not be drawn on this for legal reasons, but it would be good to hear her acknowledge the deep concerns that many people have about this issue. One person asked that if it does go ahead, could every single penny of the money raised by the Government be invested in the transition?

North Sea Oil and Gas Industry

Debate between Scott Arthur and Michael Shanks

Monday 27th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Michael Shanks]

I take the hon. Lady’s first point with a pinch of salt, after her second point that this comes as a hammer blow to the community. There is no hammer blow; those jobs have been protected—today 2,000 workers are waking up and doing the same job they were doing last week.

I am often in Aberdeen but I do not pretend that I hear as much from people there as the hon. Lady does from her constituents. Although I have made an effort to be there as often as possible to hear the concerns, I recognise that we need to move further and faster than the previous Government did for 14 years, and the Scottish Government did for 18 years, to put a credible plan in place for the future of those jobs. That means not only investing in future jobs, but ensuring the processes are in place so that people can take advantage of those jobs much more easily. Passporting, which was stuck in the mud for years, is now being delivered because we helped to unlock it. There is a lot more to do, and we will say that in the coming weeks when we publish our future of the North sea plan, but we are the ones driving forward investment that creates the jobs of the future. I am afraid that other parties—I did not count the hon. Lady’s party as one of those until today—are harking back to the past rather than recognising that the jobs of the future need to go hand in hand with good, well-paid oil and gas jobs in the short term.

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

I thank the Minister for his statement and the confidence that he is showing in those workers. We have heard from the SNP. The difference between Labour and the SNP just now is that the SNP wants to scrap the energy profits levy but does not know what it will replace it with other than something that is fairer. Does the Minister think that is the kind of leadership we need in the oil and gas sector?

[Michael Shanks]

We recognise that the energy profits levy will come to an end and have consulted on what the future of that looks like with industry. It is a matter for the Chancellor to outline tax policy, as is standard practice in this House; it is not for me to comment on that. But there is a broader question about how we ensure that we drive forward investment. Talking down the investment in carbon capture, hydrogen, offshore wind and the supply chains is not the way to drive forward the jobs of the future, alongside the critical, important oil and gas jobs that will be with us for decades to come.

Prax Lindsey Oil Refinery

Debate between Scott Arthur and Michael Shanks

Tuesday 22nd July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Michael Shanks]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his questions, and for meeting me to discuss the matter yesterday. I appreciate the impact that the closure will have, not just on those refinery workers who are directly impacted, but on the wider economy. We absolutely appreciate that there are ripple effects from a closure like this.

On the statutory redundancy point, we have looked at this, and have pushed to see if there is more action that the Government can take to change or give additional payments. It is not possible for Government to do that, not least because the Insolvency Service has to follow specific rules on creditors and how they operate in the event of an insolvency. However, the owners of the company have profited from this business, and they should do the right thing by the workforce that delivered that for them.

I have agreed to hold a roundtable discussion, and I previously met the two council leaders to talk about this. I am happy to arrange that discussion, and to have it with whoever is useful and wants to participate, because the hon. Gentleman is right about the opportunities. I am happy to engage on the point about North Lincolnshire and business rates. Although the refinery will not continue to be a going concern, we are assessing bids from those who are interested in the site; we hope those bids will deliver jobs and economic benefit, and that business rates income will come from new industries on the site. That is not as good as retaining the refinery in its current form, but we hope we can make some progress.

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

I thank the Minister for his statement, and particularly for the news that there will be a thorough investigation. I have two quick questions. First, are the reports correct that the previous Government did not meet representatives of the sector for 13 years? I know the Minister said that he had met them recently. Secondly, families will be in crisis when they hear this news, and they will struggle to deal with it. Does he agree that the owner, who I understand is not short of money, has an absolute moral obligation to ensure that those families are supported? Statutory payments are welcome, but the moral obligation has to be made clear.

[Michael Shanks]

I thank my hon. Friend for both those points. My understanding from the sector and from the Department is that a meeting has not happened in the past 13 years. [Interruption.] If the right hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), on the Opposition Front Bench, wants to find me dates when her Government met the sector, I would be really happy to look at them, and at any minutes from those meetings. That would be helpful. There are particular issues for the sector, but also for individual refineries; some are more profitable than others, and some have transitioned to doing other pieces of work. It is important that they learn from one other, and that the Government do what they can.

On my hon. Friend’s final point, I agree that there is a moral obligation here. Having met the workers on the site, I know that they have done nothing wrong. They have worked hard over many years to keep the refinery going, and to deliver a profit. Those who have taken money out of that business should now do the right thing and fund those workers, and I hope that they will respond to my letter in due course.