PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Rosebank and Jackdaw Oilfields - 10 February 2025 (Commons/Commons Chamber)

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero if he will make a statement on the ruling on the Rosebank and Jackdaw oilfields as unlawful.

The Government’s priority is to deliver a fair, orderly and prosperous transition in the North sea that recognises the role that oil and gas will play in the coming decades. This transition will be in line with our climate and legal obligations. It will drive us towards our clean energy future of energy security, lower bills and good, long-term jobs.

On 29 January, the Court of Session published its judgment on the Rosebank and Jackdaw oil and gas fields in the North sea. The judgment set out that the previous consents granted to Rosebank and Jackdaw were unlawful, as they failed to take into account the emissions from burning the fuel produced. As a result, if developers wish to proceed with these projects, they will need to reapply for consent, this time considering scope 3 emissions, as required by the Supreme Court judgment last year.

Although the judgment itself is a matter for the courts, the Government have taken rapid action. In early January, we consulted on revised environmental guidance to take into account emissions from burning extracted oil and gas, to provide stability for industry. The consultation closed on 8 July, and we are working towards publishing the finalised guidance as soon as possible. Once the guidance is in place, the Government will resume making decisions with regard to the environmental impact assessments for offshore oil and gas developments. The Court confirmed that it is in the interests of good administration for the consultation and guidance to be completed properly. It would therefore be inappropriate for me to comment on the specifics of individual projects such as Rosebank and Jackdaw in Parliament or anywhere else, because doing so would prejudice future regulatory decision making should the respective developers decide to resubmit these projects for approval.

More widely, this Government are determined to deliver the long-term jobs and investment and the clean energy future that this country needs to ensure that people working in the North sea, and those involved in the oil and gas industry across this country, have the long-term future they need.

Order. Just for clarification, you do not have jurisdiction on the planning issue, and it is no longer in the court, so I am a little bit confused by your assertion that you will be involved going forward.

I am happy to provide clarification based on the advice that I have, which is that this is a matter for the applicants in the court case, who are entitled to appeal the judgment, should they wish to do so. If they wish to make a further application in this matter, my Department will be responsible for making that judgment, and I seek not to prejudice an application by giving an opinion one way or the other on these matters. I hope that that sits well with you, Mr Speaker.

Well, kind of, but obviously Members will want to ask you about this issue today, so I do not want to try to close it down too early.

In August, this Government withdrew lawyers from the case defending the legal challenge to the issuing of licences for Rosebank and Jackdaw in the North sea. Given this Government’s decision to revoke any defence, the Court’s quashing of approval was all but inevitable. It is deeply disappointing and yet unsurprising that this Government, driven by their zealotry, are happy to put billions of pounds of investment, and thousands of jobs, at risk just because something does not align with Just Stop Oil’s vision of the future. It demonstrates that this Government are not willing to stand up for businesses or workers.

The Labour party seems to misunderstand this simple point: if we shut down our oil and gas industry, we will not use any less oil and gas—even the Climate Change Committee knows that. The Department seems to ignore the fact that we will simply rely on more imports instead. If those imports are liquified natural gas, they will come with four times the production emissions, and if we import from Norway, we will be shipping in gas from underneath the very same North sea. Sacrificing our domestic industry, only to rely on foreign imports and compound global carbon emissions, is utter madness for our economy and for the climate. It makes a mockery of our prospects for growth, and it will cost the Treasury £12 billion in lost revenue. To put that figure into perspective, it is equivalent to eight and a half years’ worth of winter fuel payments.

Last week the developer of Rosebank, Equinor, announced that it is slashing its offshore wind investment. Does the Minister appreciate that the self-harm inflicted on the North sea is damaging investment in other offshore renewables industries, too? That could be wrecking our path forward.

The Government are utterly confused. The Chancellor and the Secretary of State are completely out of touch with the public, obviously, but apparently also with each other. It is no surprise that the Secretary of State is prepared to sacrifice growth and investment in energy security for his ideological obsession, so may I ask the Minister for clarity? This is a very important point. Will the Department treat the applications, if they are resubmitted, as existing applications or new applications, given that it has a ban on all new licences moving forward? Will the Government back growth and back British workers when the decision reaches his Department, and who does he think will win this argument outright: the Secretary of State or the Chancellor of the Exchequer?

I thank the shadow Minister for his response, although I am not sure it is entirely constructive in this conversation. He knows as well as anyone that the process is live, and the companies involved in these two projects have the right to apply in future. It would be wrong for me to prejudice those applications, in the House of Commons or anywhere else, by stating an opinion—

New applications?

I will come to the hon. Gentleman’s question in a moment, but what he failed to mention was how we got to this position. The Court of Session clearly outlined in its judgment that the previous Secretary of State had made a decision that was unlawful, so once again this Labour Government are having to clear up a mess created by the previous Conservative Government. Unlike them, we will follow due process. As I outlined, we consulted on what the future of the consenting process would look like in light of the Supreme Court judgment. That is something he would have had to do if he were still in this job, because we had to respond to the Supreme Court judgment. If he is telling us now that, in government, he would have ignored the judgment of the Supreme Court, that is an interesting perspective to take.

On the hon. Gentleman’s specific point, we were clear during the election that our position is: no new licences to explore new fields. The two projects are in existing licensed fields. The question for the courts to decide was the consent for those individual new projects, and that is the process that we will now take forward if those companies should wish to resubmit their applications. The broader question about the future of the North sea will be about not one or two individual projects but the reality that it is a declining basin and that the long-term future does not rest in oil and gas, as important as they will continue to be for many years to come.

What we have sought to do as a Government is to kick-start what the economic future will look like beyond oil and gas, recognising that the North sea is a declining basin, recognising the importance of new technologies such as carbon capture and hydrogen and investing in measures such as the clean industry bonus that will deliver jobs in Aberdeen. There is only one party that is serious about working out what the transition looks like and what comes next to safeguard jobs in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency and across the north-east, and it is not the Conservative party.

I call the Chair of the Select Committee.

I thank my hon. Friend for confirming the Government’s commitment to supporting production in existing North sea oil and gas fields and for confirming the desire to partner closely with industry and workers on the transition away from fossil fuels. Does he agree that the workers and communities that rely on the North sea would be in a much stronger position if we had not witnessed over the last decade a chaotic mismanagement of the decline in the basin that he has just referred to, and the failure to plan for the loss of 70,000 jobs in that decade alone?

The Chair of the Select Committee makes an important point, which is that the failure to acknowledge that the transition is already under way is to bury your head in the sand and pretend that everything will carry on as it was. The reality is that in the past decade a third of the oil and gas workforce—70,000 workers, as my hon. Friend says—have already lost their jobs and the transition is under way. We are determined to ensure not only that the transition leads to a future in the North sea energy sector that, yes, involves oil and gas for many years to come, but that we build the industries of the future now so that there is no gap. The alternative is to do what the previous Government did, which was to pretend that the transition was not under way and then somehow deal with the shock that would come when North sea oil and gas inevitably declined to the point where workers’ jobs were not protected. We are determined to build what comes next and to protect good, well-paid jobs in the North sea for many decades to come.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

For the reason I outlined in previous answers, I will not comment specifically on these two projects. In answer to the hon. Lady’s broader point, any future applications for the North sea have to recognise the Supreme Court’s ruling that the end-use emissions, the scope 3 emissions, must be taken into account in any application.

We are now working through the significant number of responses to our consultation at the start of this year, on how people who wish to apply for consent to extract hydrocarbons from the continental shelf can comply with the Supreme Court’s judgment. An environmental assessment will be absolutely necessary. That is not a decision we have made from a political point of view; it was required by the Supreme Court.

We will follow the law of this land, as I would expect any Government to do, although apparently not a Conservative Government. We will put in place a robust system to ensure that any applications that come before us are judged fairly on their merits.

I thank the Minister for his statement, constrained as it is by the legal situation. What a cheek the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie) has. He comes to the House pretending to be a hero and protector of the oil industry, when 70,000 jobs, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) pointed out, were lost on his Government’s watch.

On the point at issue, there must be balance in the necessary transition from carbon to renewables. It is not an either/or. We have been in the North sea for two generations, and we will be there for two generations more as we wind down the basin. Politics is often about symbols, and the renewed consents for Rosebank and Jackdaw, if they come, offer an opportunity to reassure workers in this industry that they will not be left behind when we plan for a fair and just transition from the old to the new.

I thank my hon. Friend for the tone of his question. This industry has many thousands of extremely talented, skilled and experienced workers, whom I have had the great privilege of meeting over the past seven months in this role. We have to ensure that we build a resilient industry for many decades to come.

Some of that will be the oil and gas that is already licensed and consented, and any other projects that come through the process, but it will also be about building the industry that comes next. It would be irresponsible of any Government to focus on one at the exclusion of the other.

The reality is that the North sea is a super-mature basin. A transition is already under way, and it is incumbent on us—and on any responsible Government—to build the industry that comes next while continuing to support the oil and gas industry that we have today.

Does the Minister agree that there is a double standard in the Government backing Heathrow expansion to drive economic growth, but not providing the maximum possible support for our domestic oil and gas industry?

The Chancellor was very clear in her speech that there is no conflict between our net zero commitments and the industrialisation that we want to see. Economic growth projects such as the runway at Heathrow will be important but, as the Chancellor said, they will have to be in line with our climate obligations.

Importantly, as my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton) said, this is not an either/or. Oil and gas will continue to play an important role in our economy for many years to come, but we have to plan for what comes next and take cognisance of our legal and climate obligations.

I urge the Minister and Labour colleagues to take no lessons from the Conservative party on a fair and just transition away from fossil fuels, because our coalfield communities in this country were destroyed by Tory Governments over decades. In contrast, we need to look at the growth we are now providing by lifting the onshore wind ban, investing in carbon capture and storage, and establishing GB Energy.

Order. Where was the question?

I will find the question, Mr Speaker. My hon. Friend is right that historical transitions in key industries have left workers high and dry, instead of recognising that a transition is under way and supporting that workforce into what comes next. The coal industry devastated large parts of my constituency in Lanarkshire, and areas across England and Wales, which continues to have consequences for generations. We are determined that that will not happen with the North sea, but it requires us to plan the transition and to put it in place now, not to bury our heads in the sand and pretend everything is fine.

What will workers in Scotland be thinking right now, as they watch the UK Government, and a Scottish Minister, going out of their way to accelerate the decline in North sea oil and gas jobs, in advance of replacement jobs coming onstream, as they can see at Grangemouth? Does the Minister not understand that the reduction in attrition to North sea oil and gas production must be commensurate with a reduction in demand and an increase in renewables jobs? He has got that mix all over the place.

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.

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?

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.

Am I right in thinking that if the Government take the factors around emissions into account in a future application, it will not be for the court to then say that having taken them into account, the Government have arrived at the wrong decision in wanting to proceed? Surely, it is for the Government to decide whether to proceed, not the courts?

We are still digesting the detail of the judgment, but my understanding is that, as the right hon. Gentleman puts it, the Supreme Court made it clear that applications should take account of scope 3 emissions. In the process that we put in place, which I will not pre-empt, we will have to justify how the applications have met that requirement. It will then be for the North Sea Transition Authority to make a judgment and the Secretary of State, ultimately, to make a decision. If somebody wanted to take that judgment to a judicial review, they could be entitled to do so, but the right hon. Gentleman is quite right that the decision will be for the Government.

I thank the Minister for the thoughtful way in which he is proceeding. We all recognise that climate change is a threat to growth rather than a driver of it, whether that is through flooding, fires or the chaos that it causes. It is therefore shocking that the previous Government did not take account of emissions and the impact that they might have on our economy in making the decision to proceed with Rosebank, and it is right that we rethink that.

I recognise what the Minister said about court judgments. May I press him, though? His predecessors had to admit that there was no energy security in proceeding with Rosebank because 80% of the oil and gas that it would provide would not be for the UK market, so it would not drive down British consumers’ bills. Is that still his understanding of the project? Is that not another good reason why we should rethink it?

My hon. Friend is right to make the point that climate change is not a future threat but a present reality. This year alone there have been a number of examples around the world of that present reality already having a huge and devastating impact on people’s lives.

On the balance that we want to strike, yes, the oil and gas industry is important to our economy and to our energy mix, but the long-term future requires us to move towards clean power. Even if gas is extracted from the North sea, it does not help with consumer bills in this country, because it is traded on an open market to the highest bidder and sold by private companies. This is not a nationalised industry—it is owned by private companies, and gas is extracted by private companies and sold by private companies—and consumers in this country do not benefit from their gas coming from abroad or from the North sea.

If the Minister will not comment on Rosebank or Jackdaw because of the threat of legal appeals, will he at least confirm that his Government will put a stop to extraction from a reported 13 new oil and gas fields that received licences from the previous Government but are still awaiting their final consents? I believe that they are not subject to the restrictions that cause him not to want to comment on Rosebank and Jackdaw.

To be clear, I am not suggesting that I cannot comment because of particular legal action. My Department will have responsibility for making the decisions, and it would be wrong for me to prejudice that process by giving my view on those applications in Parliament or anywhere else. That is entirely how such applications end up back in court, and that is what I am determined to avoid.

We clearly outlined the question of licensing at the election: we will not issue new licences to explore new fields, existing licences will be honoured, and we will not remove licences from fields that already have a licence. However, consents—the point at which extraction takes place—must take into account climate tests, and not least the compatibility test laid down by the Supreme Court. Any applications now or in future must take account of that.

The sixth carbon budget was put in place by the previous Government. It was pretty ambitious, and it is now for this Government to identify how it will be achieved. The Minister seems to be taking an entirely practical approach, and I commend him for that, but can he assure us that the Government will ensure that any new applications will be approved only if they can achieve any offsets or mitigations in their own right, so that we keep in line with the carbon budgets that are in place, which we are legally obliged to achieve?

My hon. Friend touches on some of the key questions that we asked in the consultation, which closed just a few weeks ago and to which we had a significant number of responses. The Supreme Court’s judgment requires us to look at some of the tests that he mentioned—particularly whether there are offsets or mitigations—and we will announce how we will put that into effect in due course.

On the guidance that comes from the consultation, we have only just closed the consultation and are working as fast as possible on the results from that. However, applicants for consents will absolutely have to take account of the scope 3 emissions. It will be for them to outline in their applications how they intend to mitigate any impacts to achieve such consents.

We have already seen that if Rosebank does not go ahead £6.6 billion-worth of investment and 2,000 jobs will be lost. Those 2,000 jobs are really important to us in the north-east of Scotland. They are there for sentiment and for confidence, and they are also to show that we have a future. At the moment, it feels like the north-east is being sold down the river and that any opportunity we have is being lost because the Government are so ideologically committed to moving away from oil and gas now, as quickly as possible, and not to doing that when it is right. Are the Government still committed to jobs and security in the north-east of Scotland? It does not feel like that, living up there.

I gently say to the hon. Lady that it has nothing whatsoever to do with ideology—[Interruption.] It is about the Government responding to a legal judgment of a court—not just the Court of Session in this particular case, but the Supreme Court—on a decision taken by the previous Government to grant consent unlawfully. We now have to respond to that Supreme Court judgment and ensure that any future application process is robust and does not end up in the courts again—that is what we are determined to do. It will be for individual applicants to bring forward their applications.

On the wider point on jobs, I am acutely aware of the importance of ensuring that there is certainty in the north-east of Scotland. I have spent a lot of time in this job making an effort to get to know not just the individual companies, but the supply chains, support companies and those on apprenticeships that work in the north-east. It is important to me, as it is to the hon. Lady, but I say to her and her whole party that we cannot move forward simply saying that oil and gas is the only future for the north-east of Scotland. They are finite resources, and we are clearly saying that the balance requires us to start investing now in the transition, so that there are good well-paid jobs for many generations to come.

I welcome what my hon. Friend has said about the importance of the just transition and the need to move gradually to renewables. He quoted from our party’s manifesto that

“We will not issue new licences to explore new fields,”

but I remind him that there was another part to that paragraph. It says:

“because”

—there was a reason for it—

“they will not take a penny off bills, cannot make us energy secure, and will only accelerate the worsening climate crisis.”

Can he confirm that the 3 million oil barrels that would come out of Rosebank would in fact not take a penny off bills, cannot make us energy secure and would only worsen the climate crisis?

We have outlined in the seven months we have been in government our determination to deliver the energy security that this country has lacked in the past 14 years. The previous Government displayed a lack of preparedness not just for our energy security in future, but for the bills—higher than ever before—that all our constituents paid and that led to the cost of living crisis. That was because the Conservatives were happy to have us at the casino of fossil fuel prices. We are determined that that will not be our future and that we will no longer be in thrall to petrostates and dictators. Even though very little of our gas comes from those countries, we remain vulnerable to the prices set by international markets. We are determined that that will not happen, and we are building the clean power system that will take us away from it.

The Minister talks of the threats of the climate crisis and the need for us to meet our climate commitments, which is encouraging to hear. What steps are the Government taking right now to improve the energy efficiency of homes across the UK to help us reduce our dependence on oil and gas?

I give credit to the hon. Lady for the ingenious way she got that important question into the urgent question. She makes the good point that, as well as ensuring we have built the clean power system for the needs of the future, we want to reduce as much as possible the need for households to heat their homes by making them much warmer in the first place. We are doing that by improving the standard of homes through the work being done by the Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Miatta Fahnbulleh) on the warm homes plan. We know that some of the poorest people in our country live in substandard homes that are cold and that take far too much of their monthly budgets to heat. We are determined to do something about that, as well as working across the piece on energy-efficiency measures that reduce demand in the years ahead.

The remaining global carbon budget is extremely small, amounting to just five years’ worth of present global emissions. There is significant evidence that burning all oil and gas in existing fields globally would exceed the 1.5°C global limit. The climate pollution from burning Rosebank’s reserves would be more than the combined annual CO₂ emissions of all 28 of the lowest income countries in the world. Does the Minister agree that we should focus on a fair transition for our communities and workers as we move to other forms of energy, rather than giving CPR to an already declining industry?

My hon. Friend outlines again the importance of tackling the climate crisis that is with us now. That is why the Government have been determined to move faster, through our clean power action plan and through the Department’s wider work to decarbonise across our economy. That is incredibly important and we do not have a moment to waste.

A fair transition is key to ensuring that we move away from a carbon-based economy. We have already closed the last of our coal power stations, which was an important moment, and my visit to Ratcliffe on Soar was an important moment for me to recognise how a transition can be done well—[Interruption.] I hear the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie), chuntering that that was done under a Conservative Government. It was an example of where the Conservative Government recognised that the coal industry was declining and that a transition was necessary, but he seems not to recognise that the same is true of the oil and gas industry, which is declining. If we do not start planning for that future now, we will leave those workers with nothing.

The Government profess to want growth and jobs, yet they are giving no incentive or indication whatsoever to the developers of Rosebank and Jackdaw that if they spend millions of pounds on a new application, the Government will or will not grant consent. As a result, those developers are much more likely to say, “I won’t bother; I’ll invest my money elsewhere.” Will the Minister give an indication—yes or no to a compliant application?

I think the hon. Gentleman seeks to take me far beyond what I said at the beginning by asking me not just to give an opinion but to adjudicate on applications, right here in the House of Commons, before either company has applied. I think he knows fine well that I will not do that. We have put in place a robust process whereby the Supreme Court judgment will set out a clear pathway on exactly what companies must do in future applications. It is highly likely in this case that both companies involved in those projects will seek to apply again. They will do so and the Government will make a decision in due course. On the wider point about investment, the Government are doing everything to make this one of the most investable places in the world to come and do business—that is important. Our clean energy action plan, which he opposes, will deliver up to £40 billion of investment every single year in the industrial future of this country, and he should get behind it.

I thank the Minister for his statement and appreciate his approach in not wanting to prejudice the judicial process. I wonder whether we would be discussing this if Conservative Members had had a similarly responsible approach to government. In very general terms, does he agree that it is vital that the Government honour not just the letter but the spirit of our manifesto commitment, and that this proposal was originally approved over 20 years ago?

It is important to separate the question of licences in these two cases from the consent process—licensing and consenting have always been different processes. We have said that we will absolutely respect licences that have been issued. We have no plans to and will not revoke existing licences, but neither will we issue new licences to explore new fields. As my hon. Friend rightly says, there have been licences for those fields for a very long time, and we will not revoke them. The question now is about specific consent applications for those projects. That will come before the Department when we have put in place the process to respond to the Supreme Court judgment, and when the companies, if interested, re-submit their applications.

The Rosebank and Jackdaw oil and gas fields could supply 8% of the UK’s gas needs. The Minister has talked about the court cases, but will he clarify why the Prime Minister let the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero take Government lawyers off the defence of this case? If their push for growth is to mean anything, will the Government look again at changing judicial review processes?

On 20 June last year, the Supreme Court ruled that regulators must consider the impact of burning extracted oil and gas in the environmental impact assessment for new projects. Of course, we were already in an election cycle by that point. I do not know what the previous Government would have done, but a Supreme Court judgment gave a very clear steer that regulators must consider that impact, so I find it very hard to believe that they would have continued to defend a case that the Supreme Court clearly stated could not continue. This Government took the view that it would be wrong to put more public money into the case, when the two applicants themselves accepted the judgment of the Supreme Court. If the Opposition are saying that they would have continued to pour public money into such a case, I would be very surprised—or perhaps disappointed, but not surprised.

Conservative Members are speaking up now, but I was present at the United Nations General Assembly when they risked investor confidence in the UK. The then Prime Minister rowed back on net zero commitments, risking investor confidence in the UK and risking our global reputation on climate leadership. This Government are putting us back on the world stage when it comes to climate leadership, and we have a goal: to deliver clean power by 2030. Does the Minister agree that the UK’s key growth sectors of the future include renewable energy, and that there will be jobs for the future in renewable energy and our own Great British Energy?

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.

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?

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.

Another day, another Labour Minister cleaning up the mess of the Conservatives who came before them. The only reason why we are having this discussion today, and why there is any lack of clarity for workers in the north-east, is that the Conservatives messed up in government. However, does the Minister agree that supporting projects such as Rosebank and Jackdaw is entirely compatible with our drive towards a net zero economy? We will continue to need domestic oil and gas to 2050 and likely beyond, and therefore we should maximise UK production, since we can do so with the highest possible labour and environmental standards, and should secure and create jobs in Scotland and the rest of the UK.

My hon. Friend is right. We are putting in place a robust and clear process, so that applications can come forward that are in line with what the Supreme Court ruled, and can be decided on their merits. That is important. On UK production, as I have said a number of times and will keep saying, oil and gas will play an incredibly important role in the UK for many years to come. That investment is important, as are the jobs and the skills in the north-east.

My hon. Friend mentions environmental standards. In my past few months in this job, I have been pleased to hear about the huge amount of work that oil and gas companies have undertaken to decarbonise their work through electrification and other means. This question is about the scope 3 emissions, however, that the Supreme Court ruled must be taken into account; that is about the end use of the hydrocarbons as well. We will put in place a process to deal with that.

Last week, in excess of 400 redundancy letters were issued to workers at Grangemouth, Scotland’s only oil refinery, so perhaps the Minister will start matching his warm words about the just transition with action. On the North sea, what the industry, the investors, the workforce and our journey to net zero require is certainty. He obviously cannot comment on Rosebank and Jackdaw, and so cannot provide the answer that I think we all know is ultimately coming, but can he give us some certainty on when he expects the Government to issue the updated environmental guidance?

On the right hon. Gentleman’s final point, we are moving as quickly as possible. Having built on what needed to be done about the scope 3 emissions, we introduced the consultation as quickly as possible. We sped up that consultation, and engaged with the industry to make sure that we still got a substantial number of responses. We now have those—it closed two weeks ago, I think—and we are considering them. We will issue information about the process as quickly as possible. I cannot give him an exact date, because we have to analyse the consultation responses; it would be pointless to seek consultation responses and not look at them.

More broadly, the right hon. Gentleman is right to raise the question of Grangemouth. It is, of course, extremely disappointing that Petroineos has decided to cease refining there. For the benefit of the House, I will say that when I arrived in the Department seven months ago, the first thing in my in-tray was Grangemouth’s closure. Of course, that did not arrive in July with the Labour Government’s election—it had been known about for many, many years—but not a single plan had been put in place by the Conservative Government, or the SNP Government in Edinburgh. We moved as quickly as possible to invest in the future, and to give funding to Project Willow to make sure that there was a viable economic future for that site. I wish that I was in power five years ago to start that work, but the Opposition and the SNP failed to do anything about Grangemouth for at least 10 years in which we knew that its situation was precarious. The right hon. Gentleman will have to answer for that.

I commend the Minister for the Government’s rapid action, which he alluded to earlier. Does he agree that it is thanks to our record-breaking investment in not one but two first-of-a-kind carbon capture projects that we are getting on with delivering the good jobs that our communities deserve?

I do think that carbon capture is important. We were delighted to put forward the investment to get the track 1 projects over the line, and we are looking forward to seeing those develop. That was about giving investors confidence after a protracted period, under the previous Government, in which those projects fell by the wayside several times. We were determined to get them over the line, and I am delighted that we did.

We remain supportive of the track 2 projects, particularly the Acorn cluster in Scotland, which may have an impact on areas such as Grangemouth in future. We want to see investment there as well. Such investments are incredibly important for building the jobs of the future. That is partly why the Government are determined to look at what comes next, and not just to support the oil and gas industry, as important as that is at the moment.

The Minister has talked long and loud about confidence in the industry, but disappearing investment does not engender any confidence. The 200,000 people employed in the oil and gas sector in this country will look askance at GB Energy, which looks less like the second prize and more like the booby prize. The point is that the oil and gas that we are taking from the North sea fulfils existing demand; it does not create new demand. It keeps the lights on in our homes, shops, offices and schools right now.

The whole House will have heard the hon. Gentleman repeat the point that the £8.3 billion investment in Great British Energy is not welcomed by the Conservative party, but it will create jobs—including, I am sure, in his constituency—through supply chains. We never said that all the jobs would be in the head office. There will be an important head office in Aberdeen, in recognition of the skills there, but the investment made will create tens of thousands of jobs, which is important. In the past 10 years, a third of jobs in this industry have already been lost. Either we accept that a transition is under way, and we put in place a plan and processes to build the industry of the future, or we bury our head in the sand and continue to see thousands more jobs go. I am determined not to do that.

The highly respected Grantham Institute, chaired by Lord Stern, said that a UK Government decision to proceed with Rosebank and Jackdaw would

“signal to all other fossil fuel producers, including the United States and Russia,”

that they support a “business as usual” approach to the oil and gas industry. Does the Minister acknowledge the leadership role of the UK Government internationally, and agree that such leadership is best shown by our investing in the sustainable green jobs that North sea communities need, not by granting further unjustifiable permissions?

I will not be drawn on the applications in this case, but I agree with my hon. Friend’s broader point about the important leadership role for the UK in building the green industries of the future, and on climate change. At COP29, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero communicated the importance of leadership on this most pressing issue, and of seeing it not as a future threat, but as a present reality. The UK has an important leadership role to play and, critically, can help deliver the industrial future that we need and the clean power of the future.

The Minister will be aware that fuel in Northern Ireland is exceptionally costly, and the rise of all other costs of living is leading to businesses finding it difficult to keep their head above water, let alone turn a profit. The cost of energy is sewn into every facet of business and home life. How will the Minister ensure that the vast resources that we have at our fingertips are utilised? Does he acknowledge that while renewable energy is something to work on, we need energy now? Consent must be considered quickly, and the correct decision must be made on behalf of every home and business in the United Kingdom of Great Britian and Northern Ireland.

The hon. Gentleman has rightly raised those questions with me on a number of occasions in different debates, and they are incredibly important. Indeed, in a Westminster Hall debate, he educated me on how many off-grid households there are in Northern Ireland—it is a surprisingly high number. The issue of where our oil and gas comes from is also relevant, because they are traded on an international market, and the prices that his constituents and others pay are based on what the fossil fuel market does across the world. Given all the geopolitical uncertainty, we want to get away from fossil fuels as fast as possible and on to renewables, and the hon. Gentleman’s constituents will benefit from that as well.

Does the Minister agree that a workforce with skills honed in the North sea oil and gas sector will have an increasingly vital role in the renewables sector? Given the crucial role for GB Energy, headquartered in Aberdeen, in managing a fair and phased transition, is it not extraordinary that the Conservatives and the SNP have failed to support this proposal in this Parliament?

I agree with my hon. Friend—

Shocking! No way!

It is a huge shock, but I do agree with my hon. Friend, because failing to back an £8.3 billion investment in your own constituency seems an odd approach for a Member to take, whatever election they are standing in.

Let me make a broader point about other work that we are taking forward. One of the most important things we did recently was get the skills passport over the line. That is about recognising the huge skillset of offshore oil and gas workers; 90% of those skills are directly transferable into renewables and other technologies. Passporting is about ensuring that those skills and experiences are recognised, so that those skilled workers can find jobs in the renewable industry. This important work is about the transition to the jobs of the future. We announced that Aberdeen will be one of the first skills pilot areas, in recognition of the importance of that skills transition for the whole north-east of Scotland.

The final question is from Tom Hayes.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and as this is the final question, may I commend the Minister on taking a measured and pragmatic approach at the Dispatch Box? That is in sharp contrast with the Conservative party, which seems to be continuing its journey from zombie Government to shambolic irrelevance. When I talk to investors and businesses in the energy sector, they stress the importance of a plan, whether it is that of the National Energy System Operator, or of mission control, led by Chris Stark. Will the Minister outline the importance of Great British Energy in the planned transition to the jobs of the future?

In terms of the tone of the debate, the Government and the Opposition will of course disagree on many things—by the sounds of it, we increasingly disagree on the importance of tackling climate change and net zero—but generally we all want to see a transition in the North sea that is fair and prosperous, particularly for the workers in that industry, to ensure that they have confidence that they will have well-paid jobs to go into. I spend every day in this job taking that incredibly seriously, and whatever disagreements we might have across the Dispatch Box, I hope that is understood. We want to build a transition that recognises that it is already under way, that thousands of jobs have been lost and that it is our duty and responsibility as a Government to ensure that we put in place the industry and jobs that come next. That is what I will spend every day doing while I am privileged to have this job.