Jackdaw and Rosebank Oil and Gas Fields

My Lords, I declare my interests as chairman of Buckthorn, Amey and Actaeon. I warmly welcome the Minister back to the Dispatch Box, and I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Whitehead, who was a highly knowledgeable and impressive Minister. Given the Government’s outright opposition to new drilling in the North Sea, does the Minister nevertheless agree that there is no reason not to approve Jackdaw and Rosebank, which have already had drilling activity, with Jackdaw now ready for production? In contrast to the response of the noble Baroness, Lady Winterton, to the Private Notice Question just now, given that the Government themselves have the final sign-off on Falkland Islands production licences dating back to the early 1990s, when both Tim Eggar and I were ministerially involved, what is the Government’s position on the Falkland Islands Government’s pro-oil and gas position on the Sea Lion oilfield, which is at the centre of the diplomatic row with Argentina? Is it consistent with the department’s position on the North Sea—in other words, outright opposition to new drilling and new offshore oil and gas infrastructure? If not, what is the difference?

I thank the noble Lord for his warm welcome. We know each other, and I know that we both welcome robust discussion—which is just as well because I think we will have a few disagreements along the way. He made reference to the enormous contribution of my noble friend Lord Whitehead to this portfolio and the work that he has done. I have learned a lot, and will continue to learn a lot, from my noble friend. On the substance of the issue the noble Lord raises, he will know that the Jackdaw and Rosebank fields are each subject to a live regulatory process. The public notice period is closing on 10 and 17 August respectively. We are part of that regulatory process. The Secretary of State will consider the representations received and make separate decisions on each project in due course. It would be inappropriate to comment further on either project because it is important to maintain the robustness of the process and not pre-empt or predetermine the decisions. I note the detail of what the noble Lord asked me in relation to the Falklands. I refer him back to the comments of my noble friend Lady Winterton, and it would be inappropriate for me to comment further on that.

My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Baroness on her appointment, and I look forward to working opposite her. I also pay tribute to the outgoing noble Lord, Lord Whitehead. I know the Minister is unable to comment before the decision, so instead I ask if she agrees with me that the Onward report, through which the Conservative Party has argued that we should abandon our net zero targets and could save £320 billion, is not worth the paper it is written on, as it is based on an incorrect underlying assumption that future gas prices will be low and stable and would result in an extra 524 million tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions by 2050.

I thank the noble Earl for that question and for his welcome, and I pay tribute to his work on this issue in the House. Again, I have learned a great deal and will continue to do so from listening to his speeches. I recognise and appreciate the point being made about the Rosebank and Jackdaw decisions. I recognise the interest in them, but I cannot be drawn on that. On his wider point, the noble Earl is right about the Onward report, the general disappointment people feel at the breaking of the consensus we have seen from the Conservative Party over recent months, and how significant that is. He will know that climate scientists and energy industry bodies have overwhelmingly challenged the report’s methodology and logic as applied to grid and infrastructure costs, and how it has costed the high volatility of gas along with its political and economic costs.

My Lords, I wonder whether my noble friend would confirm that under the Conservatives, production in the North Sea reduced by half between 2010 and 2024—which is no surprise because it is a super-mature basin—and that giving consent to these two oilfields, which I know my noble friend cannot comment on at the moment, would have a minimal effect either on achieving net zero targets or on prices. The reality is that what the Government need to do, whatever the decision on these oilfields, is stick to the policy of going as fast as possible towards clean energy.

I thank my noble friend for that question. I pay tribute to the work he has done in this field and to the very significant contribution he made as a Minister, particularly within the nuclear field. I cannot be drawn on the points he raises but I can assure him that the North Sea and oil and gas will play a vital role in our energy mix for years to come. He noted that under the Conservatives, by the end of 2016 more than 120,000 UK oil and gas jobs had gone. It is a changing basin, but we see it as part of the mix. We understand that the North Sea not only has an oil and gas sector but can play a vital role in a clean energy economy. That will make an enormous contribution not only to the north-east of Scotland but to the wider UK economy.

My Lords, I welcome the noble Baroness back to her position on the Front Bench. Does she agree that a major issue underlying the decisions—which I know she cannot talk about—is the widespread concern about the cost of energy in this country? Does she further agree that the important thing is to make some progress on decoupling the price of gas from the price of energy and electricity generally? When are the Government going to make some progress in separating off those two strands?

I thank the noble Baroness for her welcome and for that question. I recognise the work that she does and, as a former member, I hope I can continue to engage with Peers for the Planet. She makes a central point underlying the work that we do. The cost of energy is central to the Prime Minister’s mission in tackling these issues, and he has said that affordability will be at the centre of what he tries to do. She is also right to emphasise the de-linking of electricity and gas, and that will remain a priority of our work. I look forward to meeting her to discuss that and to continuing these debates in the House. I can assure her that that is a priority for our work going forward, as is affordability.

Why do the Government wish to increase world CO 2 , and why do they wish to pay taxes to foreign companies and countries rather than to British ones by insisting on importing LNG rather than getting our own gas out of a pipe, which generates much less CO 2 ?

I thank the noble Lord for the question, but I cannot be tempted to answer it directly, as I perhaps would wish to, because of the implications of what I might say. I ask noble Lords to really appreciate the significance of this decision; we cannot jeopardise it by any loose words. I obviously do not accept some of the assumptions behind his question. This Government are committed to ensuring that all companies pay due tax and regenerate the economy. We will work with businesses in the North Sea and across Scotland to make sure that they are thriving. I plead with him to understand that the work this Labour Government are doing is contributing to a thriving clean energy sector as well, and that that performs competitively in the economy. No doubt that will be something we will discuss in the future.

My Lords, I welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Curran, my erstwhile friend in the Scottish Cabinet, to her place on the Front Bench. Whatever decision is taken on Jackdaw and Rosebank, can she confirm that clean energy, whether developed by solar, wind or other means, will remain at the heart of British energy policy? It not only provides the scope for decarbonisation of our economy, but also for new jobs.

I thank my noble friend and colleague for that question. He knows that I was a Member of the Scottish Parliament and a Minister in the Scottish Government. In that capacity, I met the oil and gas sector many times and worked very closely with them. I understand the contribution they have made and will continue to make, but there is no avoiding the fact that we live in challenging times in terms of climate change. Clean energy is not only necessary but is a huge opportunity for economic development. It will help us meet the challenge of our times through reducing carbon emissions, electrifying our economy and creating opportunities for people in the United Kingdom.