partytracker.uk — a sourced record of what Britain's political parties say and do, party by party, with every entry linked to a primary source

12,832 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them

1. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Navendu Mishra

   Royal Mail: Performance

   I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am a member of the CWU. I thank the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) for securing this important debate. Of course, Ms Lewell, it is a pleasure to serve in this debate with you in the Chair. If we need an example of disaster and chaos in privatising a public asset, we need look no further than Royal Mail. The water industry is a close challenger, but we would have an even longer debate if we were to discuss the issues in Royal Mail versus the issues in the privatised water industry. We need to recognise that in 2013 Royal Mail was privatised by the Conservative and Liberal Democrat coalition. It is important to know that the root cause of the issues is that privatisation, which has been a disaster. My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Anna Dixon) mentioned that one option we should consider is renationalising Royal Mail, and I support that. In my constituency of Stockport, I conducted an online survey—I do not need to reiterate the points about doing postal surveys, which would probably never get there or come back in time—and 89% of respondents experienced a service disruption or delays to Royal Mail deliveries and were dissatisfied with Royal Mail. I do not want to repeat the points that have already been made, but I have also been to my local delivery office on numerous occasions and the postal men and women do a fantastic job. None of us in this House on a cross-party basis has issues with our postal workers. The issue is with the toxic management, how the business is run and the lack of governance. It could be argued that Royal Mail management is better off paying the fine than actually meeting its obligations to the public. Stamp prices keep going up, but letter deliveries keep getting worse. The hon. Member for Witney (Charlie Maynard) suggested that there should be no further rises in the price of stamps until Royal Mail can demonstrate on a long-term basis that it has consistently improved letter delivery standards. Just this week a resident reported that a first-class letter took over 10 days to arrive and they received birthday cards a week late. Another constituent, from Ainsdale Grove in Reddish in my constituency, contacted me to say that their entire street received large batches of delayed post, with some letters dating back to 25 September. That is completely unacceptable. As I said, I am a proud member of the CWU, but I want to see Royal Mail management working with the CWU. There have been reports that almost 400 postal workers are leaving their jobs at Royal Mail—there must be an extremely toxic culture for that number of people to be leaving. I could say a lot more, but time is limited.

   Hansard source
2. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Nadia Whittome

   Jackdaw Gasfield

   The Government claim that approving Jackdaw will help fund clean energy—making them, if you like, both the arsonist and the firefighter. The North sea is a declining basin, though, meaning that it is a rapidly shrinking tax base. The Office for Budget Responsibility expects the North sea to provide just £100 million in tax per year by 2030. At that rate, the oil and gas sector would take 20 years to match the Government’s injection into the energy wealth fund today, so does the Minister see that approving Jackdaw is a false economy?

   Hansard source
3. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Ms Stella Creasy

   Jackdaw Gasfield

   The Minister will know that the climate science is clear that opening any new North sea oil and gasfields is incompatible with achieving our Paris climate agreement goal of limiting warming to 1.5°C. He will know that Jackdaw alone is worth 35 million tonnes of carbon dioxide, and Rosebank a further 250 million tonnes. What can he say to my constituents in Walthamstow who are still clearing up after the wildfires that burned down their homes and damaged their houses, and are now terrified about flooding from El Niño, about how this decision, our work on reducing emissions and the fund that he has mentioned will help to protect their future?

   Hansard source
4. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Ms Julie Minns

   E-scooters and E-bikes: Regulation

   It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I congratulate the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) on securing this important debate. I will confine my remarks to e-bikes. Let me begin by emphasising that legal e-bikes have an important role to play in sustainable transport and active travel, but vehicles that do not meet the definition of an electrically assisted pedal cycle and are used on the highway are illegal road vehicles and should be banned from sale. Earlier this year, I presented a Bill that proposed exactly that. Illegal e-bikes, whether sold as such or converted using kits, pose serious safety risks. They reach speeds for which their frames and braking systems were never designed. They kill pedestrians and endanger other road users. Their batteries catch fire and cause devastating house fires and death. They facilitate criminal activity such as phone theft and drug dealing and they are a persistent nuisance in parks, on pavements and around stations. Their ready availability online also undermines legitimate markets, depressing the sale of legal, tested EAPCs and low-powered motorcycles. Meanwhile, the Motor Insurers’ Bureau settles millions of pounds in claims every single year for accidents involving illegal bikes, and the cost is borne by law-abiding motorists through higher premiums. The Government must act with urgency to tackle this problem. They have the means to do so: the Product Regulation and Metrology Act gives Ministers powers to designate products that are unsafe and regulate to remove them from sale. What discussions has the Minister had with colleagues in the Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade about using those powers? Does he agree that the continued availability of illegal e-bikes is undermining confidence in legitimate cycling and risks tarnishing the cycling celebration that is the Tour de France when it comes to Britain—and, more importantly, my constituency—next year?

   Hansard source
5. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Ms Julie Minns

   E-scooters and E-bikes: Regulation

   Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the loophole for off-road bikes, which is exploited in the use of illegal e-bikes, has existed since the Road Traffic Act 1988 and could have been closed in the past 14 years?

   Hansard source
6. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Mr Toby Perkins

   Jackdaw Gasfield

   Today’s decision is probably not a surprise to most people. It will make a relatively limited difference to energy security, and probably very little difference to pricing, but I very much welcome what the Minister said about it being part of a transition, and about us not ripping up the policy commitment to no wider exploration. I agree with him that this decision is consistent with our manifesto pledge. We need to move to heat pumps and electric vehicles, and to make other changes for industry, but does the Minister agree that the absolute priority is bringing down electricity prices and getting us off the fossil fuel rollercoaster? What else will he do, in this Budget and Budgets to come, to make sure that we achieve that?

   Hansard source
7. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Mr Jonathan Brash

   Jackdaw Gasfield

   I warmly welcome this decision. New drilling in the North sea is good for energy security, national security and jobs, including jobs in my constituency of Hartlepool and in the supply chain. Jobs in Hartlepool have been created in new nuclear and renewables, too. Does it frustrate the Minister, as it frustrates me, when certain populist politicians put their ideology ahead of fact and would destroy jobs in renewables, nuclear and North sea oil and gas in my constituency and across the country?

   Hansard source
8. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Mr Hamish Falconer

   Church Appointments (Repeal of Discriminatory Provision) Bill

   I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time. It is a pleasure to open today’s debate on this straightforward yet important piece of legislation, which I hope will command broad support across the House. The purpose of this Bill is to remove historical legal barriers that prevent a Prime Minister who professes either the Roman Catholic or Jewish faith from advising the sovereign on Church appointments or a Minister from making appointments in their own right. For the benefit of the House, it may be helpful to briefly set out the constitutional and historical context. Since the formal establishment of the Church of England in the 16th century, archbishops and bishops have been appointed by the sovereign as Supreme Governor. Over time, they came to do so on the advice of Ministers, and now the Prime Minister, as the sovereign’s principal adviser, provides advice on these and other Church appointments that the sovereign makes. In practice, the Prime Minister does not choose between candidates, but rather provides formal advice on candidates following a selection process. Separately, certain Ministers—for instance, the Lord Chancellor—have, by virtue of their office, rights to act as a patron in parish-level Church appointments directly without the involvement of the sovereign. Again, this is following a selection process. To understand why these restrictions remain on our statute book today, it is helpful to look briefly at the 19th century, when Parliament passed the Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829 and the Jews Relief Act 1858. After the reformation, many people believed that religious unity under the Church of England and Church of Scotland was essential to maintain the peace. Gradual progress was then made to remove restrictions on worship outside of the established Churches and expand the role of non-Anglicans in political life.

   Hansard source
9. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Mr Hamish Falconer

   Church Appointments (Repeal of Discriminatory Provision) Bill

   My hon. Friend makes a powerful intervention. She is right that the effect of this Bill will be to remove the last remaining discriminations against Catholics and Jews on the statute book. It is a historic moment, and I am very glad of it.

   Hansard source
10. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Mr Hamish Falconer

    Church Appointments (Repeal of Discriminatory Provision) Bill

    My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Southall (Deirdre Costigan) was making a point about the active role of Roman Catholics in public life, including in this place. I suspect that the Father of the House and I are not going to agree totally on this Bill, but as constituency neighbours I want to say that he does, as a professing Catholic, play a very active role both in this House and elsewhere. This Bill would take all force away from the Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829 and mean that none of its provisions have any force. That is slightly different from the question of the line of succession. For the purposes of this House and normal political activity in this country, the Bill will remove all restrictions.

    Hansard source
11. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Mr Hamish Falconer

    Church Appointments (Repeal of Discriminatory Provision) Bill

    My hon. Friend is pithier than I am. Yes, this is about elected office. I will make a little progress, if right hon. and hon. Members do not mind. Let me take you back to the reformation, Madam Deputy Speaker. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Southall said, until the mid-19th century, there were considerably more restrictions on Catholics and Jews, including an effective prohibition on becoming a Member of Parliament. The Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829 and the Jews Relief Act 1858 removed many but not all of these legal barriers to Roman Catholic and Jewish participation in public life. This included permitting people of those faiths to become MPs and to serve in various civil and military offices, but the legislation retained certain exceptions, which this Bill seeks to address. Under section 18 of the 1829 Act and section 4 of the 1858 Act, individuals professing the Catholic or Jewish faiths are restricted from giving advice to the sovereign in relation to Church appointments. The penalty for breaching these restrictions is being prevented from holding a civil or military office under the Crown, which includes serving as Prime Minister. Until now there has never been a Prime Minister professing either the Roman Catholic or Jewish faith while in office. Following the appointment of my right hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) as Prime Minister in July, these 19th-century legal restrictions are now having a practical effect for the first time. To ensure that Church appointments can continue smoothly, the Prime Minister has temporarily transferred his responsibilities for advising the sovereign on Church appointments to the Lord Chancellor. But it would not be right to continue these arrangements indefinitely. I am sure that the whole House will agree with me that, in the 21st century, one’s faith should not be a barrier to carrying out any of the duties of high office. Removing these restrictions from the statute book is the right thing to do. Moreover, it is important to uphold one of our core constitutional principles that the Prime Minister is the sovereign’s principal adviser and should be able to advise on Church appointments just like his predecessors. This Bill resolves a live, practical issue and removes an outdated restriction that has no place in our modern parliamentary democracy. With hon. Members’ support, I hope that it will not detain the House for long. I understand that some Members might raise questions about why non-Anglican Prime Ministers or Ministers should be able to advise the sovereign on appointments to a Church whose faith or denomination they do not share. However, the Government firmly reject that view. The legal restrictions that we are seeking to repeal only apply to individuals professing the Roman Catholic or Jewish faiths. They do not apply to people of other faiths, other Christian denominations or no faith at all. That is why former Prime Ministers Rishi Sunak, a professed Hindu, and Sir Keir Starmer, a professed atheist, as well as many other non-Anglican Prime Ministers in the 20th century were able to advise the sovereign on Church appointments without risking disbarment from office. While the Church of England is the established Church, one of our country’s great strengths is that it is made up of people of different faiths and backgrounds, who should all enjoy equal treatment under our laws. To suggest that a Minister must personally share the faith of the established Church in order to convey its advice would be to misunderstand the constitutional role of the Crown’s principal adviser. As a modern parliamentary democracy and constitutional monarchy, the King is the Head of State and acts on the advice of his Ministers, who are accountable to the electorate and to this place. It is therefore right that the Prime Minister, regardless of his religious beliefs, is able to advise the King on Church appointments.

    Hansard source
12. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Mr Hamish Falconer

    Church Appointments (Repeal of Discriminatory Provision) Bill

    The point I was seeking to cover is that it is an important constitutional principle that the Prime Minister is the principal adviser to the sovereign, including in his role as the head of the established Church. Clearly, in practice—I think this is well known to the House—the Prime Minister does not take an active role in selecting members of the clergy, but that does not mean that it is wise to continue with this discrimination, in particular against Catholics and Jews. Clause 1 makes provision to repeal sections 17 and 18 of the Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829 and to repeal the Jews Relief Act 1858 in its entirety, lifting all statutory restrictions on Ministers advising on or making Church appointments. Crucially, the Bill treats and removes restrictions on Roman Catholic and Jewish individuals in exactly the same way, ensuring complete parity and equal treatment between both faiths. The clause also removes outdated restrictions on making Church appointments, referring to rights of patronage such as those held by the Lord Chancellor to directly nominate vicars to parish benefices. While those provisions have been partially repealed and are generally no longer of any practical effect, completely repealing them removes any lingering legal uncertainty. Clause 2 sets out the UK-wide territorial extent and provides for commencement immediately on Royal Assent. Members may recall that last year we passed a similar piece of legislation: the Church of Scotland (Lord High Commissioner) Act 2025. The Government’s approach is both principled and pragmatic. We address archaic, centuries-old statutory restrictions such as these as and when they have a live practical impact on public life. Last year, we acted to facilitate the historic appointment of Lady Angiolini—a practising Catholic—to the office of Lord High Commissioner to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland. We are bringing forward this Bill now because these 19th-century provisions are having an impact on ministerial advice for the first time. No doubt, there may be questions about whether we will need a third Bill to address further historical religious restrictions. Let me reassure hon. Members that, with the passage of this Bill, the job is complete. Following this legislation, I assure the House that there will be no remaining religious restrictions affecting Ministers and other individuals appointed by the Crown, and we are confident that no further such action will ever be required. There we are: a short, simple and straightforward Bill. While it will take up only a few lines of our statute book, this legislation corrects an archaic historical wrong and ensures that our constitutional arrangements reflect a modern, equal society where no Prime Minister, regardless of his religious beliefs, is restricted from being able to advise the sovereign. I hope that the Bill will receive support from all sides. In that spirit, I commend it to the House.

    Hansard source
13. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Mr Hamish Falconer

    Church Appointments (Repeal of Discriminatory Provision) Bill

    I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time. I will keep my remarks brief. As we have heard, this Bill’s purpose is to lift archaic historical restrictions that prevent an individual of the Roman Catholic or Jewish faith from advising the sovereign on Church appointments, or from making Church appointments where their office gives them the right to directly nominate someone. The Bill will therefore ensure that the current Prime Minister and, indeed, any future Prime Minister who professes either the Roman Catholic or Jewish faith can perform their constitutional responsibility to advise the sovereign on these matters without risking disbarment from public office. I give heartfelt thanks for the insightful contributions of hon. and right hon. Members, particularly the Father of the House and my constituency neighbour, the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh). I thank the Opposition for the spirit with which they have approached the Bill. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead Central and Whickham (Mark Ferguson) acknowledged, today’s debates have featured some very thoughtful contributions about the development of our constitutional arrangements. I am grateful for the support of hon. Members from across the House for the approach that we have taken. I know that the House will agree that although the Bill is modest, it is an important step forward in ensuring that our laws reflect our belief that a Prime Minister’s faith should not restrict their ability to undertake their role. I commend this Bill to the House.

    Hansard source
14. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Mike Kane

    Church Appointments (Repeal of Discriminatory Provision) Bill

    The poor Anglican bishops. The old joke is that they have only two good days in their whole career: their consecration day and their retirement day. The Father of the House mentioned one of the great converts to the Church of Rome in the 19th century, Cardinal Newman. We also had Cardinal Manning in the 19th century, whereas the 20th century produced for us Widdecombe and Gummer. I was wondering what his opinion of that was. I think the whole House should join me in congratulating the Father of the House on becoming a knight of the Pontifical Equestrian Order of Saint Gregory the Great, effectively becoming a papal knight, which is a rarely bestowed honour. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] I think we are all very proud of him for that. As we gallop towards 200 years since Catholic emancipation in 1829, I note that there is no piece of artwork in this House dedicated to Daniel O’Connell and that campaign. Does the Father of the House agree that we should rectify that in the next three years?

    Hansard source
15. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Michelle Welsh

    Mineworkers’ Pension Schemes: Nottinghamshire

    Does my hon. Friend agree that for former mineworkers and their families in Sherwood Forest, these pensions are deferred wages earned through years of hard and dangerous work, and that, with many members now facing ill health, there is no time to waste? Will he join me in urging the Government to use the Budget to secure a fair agreement on surpluses and ensure that bonus pensions are protected and rise with inflation?

    Hansard source
16. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Michelle Scrogham

    Engagements

    Q15. My constituent Ian has a rare and aggressive form of cancer that is now, sadly, incurable. Clinicians have advised that regorafenib is the only remaining life-extending option. Until recently, the drug was provided free of charge through the compassionate use scheme. Following the Government’s announcement on VAT reform, the developer, Bayer, has withdrawn from the scheme—the only company to do so—leaving Ian with no further options. Ian does not have the luxury of time, so will the Prime Minister urgently commit to ensuring a solution to the VAT issue, to provide Bayer with certainty to rejoin the scheme, and will he meet my constituent to see the real-life impact of these life and death decisions?

    Hansard source
17. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Michael Shanks

    Jackdaw Gasfield

    First, Mr Speaker, I entirely respect your comments. I hope that in my time in this House I have always given you the impression that I take this House seriously. Your points have been noted, and I will absolutely take them back to the Department.

    Hansard source
18. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Michael Shanks

    Jackdaw Gasfield

    With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will now make a statement on the offshore Jackdaw gasfield and the Government’s approach more broadly to North sea oil and gas. This supplements the written ministerial statement that I made to the House on the topic earlier this morning. The original grant of consent for the Jackdaw project, made in 2022 under the previous Government, was judged to be unlawful and was quashed by the courts. This was because emissions from the burning of extracted gas were not considered, and it therefore did not assess the full environmental impacts of the project. My right hon. Friend the Energy Secretary and the regulator have now retaken the relevant decisions, fully taking into account environmental impacts. Today, I can inform the House that the Energy Secretary has decided in favour of the project and that the regulator, the North Sea Transition Authority, has now granted consent for gas to be produced at the licensed Jackdaw field. Given that the court permitted the developer to continue development at risk until a new consenting decision was made, the project will therefore start to supply gas to British homes and businesses by as soon as the end of this month. In reaching her decision, the Energy Secretary considered all relevant information in the round. She looked at the project’s expected benefits to the UK, including its contribution to energy security, employment, impacts on other energy infrastructure and other economic benefits, and carefully weighed them against the potential environmental effects, including the effects relating to greenhouse gas emissions. The full reasons for our decisions are set out in detail in the decision document, which was published on gov.uk. I want to assure the House that the Government remain committed to tackling the climate crisis and to moving away from fossil fuels and towards renewable and nuclear energy. The recent heatwaves and weather events we have seen demonstrate why that is critical, and the Secretary of State will be leading the UK delegation to COP next month to drive global action and build a credible pathway back to 1.5° of warming. I want to be clear that this project will not prevent the UK from being able to meet its legally binding limits on carbon emissions and achieve net zero by 2050. But even on the path to net zero, the UK will still require oil and gas as part of our energy needs for decades to come. This decision is consistent with the Government’s manifesto commitments to end new licences, explore new fields and support the management of existing fields for their lifespan. The Chancellor and the Energy Secretary have also announced that the Government will establish a new North sea energy wealth fund, which will use tax revenues from North sea oil and gas to invest in net zero projects and support the green transition. This will start with an initial £2 billion capital injection of funding, with future revenues from the North sea flowing into the fund over time. It will support our plans to delink gas and electricity over the course of the Parliament, ensuring that home-grown renewables and low-carbon power set the price of electricity far more than gas, helping to protect households and businesses from volatile fossil fuel markets and bring down bills for good. The North sea future plan set out our approach to securing a managed, orderly and prosperous transition and set out how we will deliver our manifesto commitment to support the management of existing fields by introducing transitional energy certificates, and we will legislate for those reforms when parliamentary time allows. However, a small number of tieback projects face urgent investment and operational decisions now, and I have therefore asked the North Sea Transition Authority to consider whether any such projects could benefit from similar measures now, before the legislation is in place. This is a limited interim arrangement for urgent cases where operators can demonstrate committed investment, credible delivery plans and near-term activity. Any decision will remain for the NSTA, in accordance with its statutory responsibilities. Timely decommissioning is important for both the environment and the economy, and this Government are keen to unblock and progress decisions in a timely way. I can also announce today that the regulator has invited the decommissioning programme for the Brent installations, marking an important step in restarting another regulatory process that has been on hold for years. My officials are also beginning discussions with industry leaders on a refresh of the North sea transition deal to ensure that future domestic oil and gas production continues to benefit the UK and to build the energy industries of the future. First agreed in 2021, the deal aims to provide a clear path for the industry to support the UK in reaching net zero carbon emissions by 2050, while protecting jobs and supporting energy security. Finally, as the Prime Minister said a few moments ago, we are looking at removing standing charges on gas bills at the earliest opportunity. Today’s decision means that we will get more power flowing directly into British homes and businesses this winter as we continue our transition to renewables. I commend this statement to the House.

    Hansard source
19. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Michael Shanks

    Jackdaw Gasfield

    In the two and a half years that the hon. Gentleman says that he has had to think about this, he might have come up with something better than that performance. The Conservatives’ lack of contrition for a decision that was quashed by a court is absolutely shameful. I reiterate that the Court was very clear in its judgment that while the decision did not stand, the project could continue to be developed, so there has been no delay in its development; that is why extraction from the Jackdaw field can continue. The hon. Gentleman talked about dither and delay. That brings me to the truth of this, which is that the Conservative party left Britain with an energy system that was less secure, more exposed to international shocks and slower to invest than it should have been. I watched the Conservative party conference in great detail, and I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman seems to be shifting his party’s position back to what it was before the previous shadow Secretary of State’s time, and is supporting more renewables. I really welcome that, and I look forward to working with him to make that a success, because we agree on that. This decision is important for our energy security and jobs, but the long-term pathway for Britain is towards not fossil fuels, but building the clean power system that we need, electrifying the economy, and building the nuclear that the hon. Gentleman claims to care so much about, although he did not build any in his two years as Nuclear Minister, due to dither and delay. We fell behind as a country on the energy security that we needed. This decision is part of our response to energy crises. To have a secure long-term future, we must build up the industries that come next. That is important for Britain’s energy security, jobs, and opportunities in his constituency and right across the country. That is what this Government will get on and do.

    Hansard source
20. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Michael Shanks

    Jackdaw Gasfield

    I agree with my hon. Friend about the transition. The vast majority of jobs in the oil and gas industry are in the very supply chains that we need to build the renewables and networks of the future, so it is important that we hold on to those; that is a huge opportunity. Pragmatism has to go both ways. We have to be pragmatic about oil and gas in the North sea, but it would be irresponsible not to make the investment needed in clean power and the long-term future of jobs. We are seeking to do both. We will make sure that the transition is managed, by investing the revenues from this gas project—that is £2 billion initially, but additional revenues will flow into it—and will invest in the clean power projects that will help us to get off fossil fuels in the long term, while retaining the critical workforce in the UK.

    Hansard source
21. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Michael Shanks

    Jackdaw Gasfield

    I am genuinely confused about the Lib Dems’ position, because my understanding was that they were now in favour of the Jackdaw field. Maybe that will change again by the end of the day. I hear the point that she makes. We are not waiting for a tipping point. We have been getting on with electrification and building the clean power mission for the past two and a half years. I would gently say to the Lib Dems that there were 10 sites for new nuclear projects in 2009. After Labour left office in 2010, the leader of the Liberal Democrats was Energy Minister for a period in which no new nuclear, which would have helped us, was built. I agree with the hon. Lady’s point about climate. In making the decision, all those factors had to be weighed up. The full decision notice is available, and it goes into this in great detail, but the Secretary of State was very clear that her assessment is that the decision does not prevent the UK from meeting legally binding limits on carbon emissions, or from achieving our net zero target. A managed transition recognises that moving to a low-carbon economy will involve balancing climate objectives, the deployment of clean power and the electrification of heat and industry with ensuring energy security in the short term, in which we will be required to use oil and gas across our economy. This is about doing both, and getting us to the end point as quickly as possible.

    Hansard source
22. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Michael Shanks

    Jackdaw Gasfield

    I agree with my hon. Friend about the absolute priority. He is absolutely right to say that this decision will not take a penny off bills. We have been consistent on that throughout. We are a price taker as a country, and no number of consenting decisions will change the fact that gas is traded on the international market and the decision is of marginal impact on the overall price; it does not have an impact on that. Nevertheless, the gas resulting from this decision will account for around 5% of domestic gas production, so the decision is important from a security point of view. My hon. Friend’s wider point is about how we move many more people over to electricity and then bring down the cost of electricity. We are doing all we can to break the link with gas; that is absolutely critical. Electricity bills have gone up in the last two price caps because of our exposure to fossil fuels. That is affected by a war thousands of miles away that we had no part in. We are already making progress. A few years ago, 90% of the electricity price was set by gas. The figure is now 60%, and is going down all the time, but we have much more to do on that. Evidence from the past few months has shown that the people who are being supported to take up heat pumps or solar panels are off-grid households, which face the impact of heating oil prices. They have taken up those opportunities. The public are behind us on this; we just need to make it as straightforward as possible. That is what the warm homes plan will deliver.

    Hansard source
23. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Michael Shanks

    Jackdaw Gasfield

    Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. As a fellow by-election MP, I can agree with the hon. Member that we need to dine out on our by-elections as much as we can; he was quite right to raise that. The hon. Member is right about the process. I will not comment on timelines for upcoming decisions, but over the past two years, we have put in place a process to allow consideration of scope 3 emissions and consultation on that, and then to get the consenting decisions back into the process. That has all now been done, so now, the process will be just consideration of individual applications, rather than us having to go through all that again. Obviously, there is consideration to be given to upcoming consenting decisions. That consideration will be based on the evidence submitted, and not an artificial timeline. The hon. Member talked about common sense. It is really important to make this point. The common-sense, pragmatic position for the future of the north-east of Scotland is to say, as I do, that oil and gas will continue to be important for a long time—I have been in Aberdeen often enough to know how important it is to the jobs there—but that must go hand in hand with us investing as much as we can in the long-term industries that will create jobs there. That is why I talked about decommissioning in my statement; there is a huge opportunity there for jobs and the supply chain in the north-east. I hope that we can get a bit more cross-party consensus, maybe not on everything to do with oil and gas, but on the need to invest in supply chains and industry, so that we can build the renewables of the future.

    Hansard source
24. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Michael Shanks

    Jackdaw Gasfield

    I love my appearances before the Select Committee; I gently point out that other Ministers in the Department would love to come and give evidence as well. Nevertheless, I am happy to do so, and I always appreciate the conversations. My hon. Friend is right. We moved as quickly as we could to put in place the process that responded to the Supreme Court judgment on Finch and the Court of Session judgment on these applications. We have done that, and we considered all the evidence to make this decision today. Whatever people’s views, the critical thing is that the decision can stand on its merits, and it was is right and proper that we took the time to get this right. My hon. Friend’s broader point was right. The real prize of the energy transition, if we get it right, is tackling the climate crisis while creating jobs in every single part of the country. We have to do both. She is a fantastic champion of her community and of this industry. If we get this right, we will create the next generation of good, sustainable jobs for young people growing up today. They will not have a long-term career in oil and gas, but could have a good, long-term career in renewables, carbon capture, hydrogen and other areas. I hope that we can work together to make that a reality.

    Hansard source
25. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Michael Shanks

    Jackdaw Gasfield

    Just to be clear, I said that there was no time delay because the projects were not ready to extract in any event. It is for the developer to speak to the details, but my understanding is that the Rosebank project is not ready to extract now, either. My point was that, although we had to retake the decisions made by the previous Government that were quashed by a court, the developer was allowed to continue the development of the project at its risk. That means that, now it has the consent, it is ready to extract by the end of this month. The Rosebank project is obviously subject to a separate regulatory process, which I will not comment on just now.

    Hansard source
26. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Michael Shanks

    Jackdaw Gasfield

    My hon. Friend’s point about postcodes is really important for us. I hope that through the transition we can collectively get to a similar place, where there is not a single postcode in the country that does not have jobs associated with clean energy. That is our aim in driving forward the supply chain investment and everything else. My hon. Friend is right to centre the whole conversation on the workers. For 60 years, workers have done incredibly difficult and dangerous work in the North sea to bring energy ashore. I pay tribute to all of them, some of whom lost their lives in that process. It is our duty to ensure that there is a long-term legacy for that workforce in oil and gas, in decommissioning and in other technologies that we need to invest in now. That is the prize if we get it right—but, frankly, it is also our responsibility to that workforce now and the workforce of the future.

    Hansard source
27. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Michael Shanks

    Jackdaw Gasfield

    I am sorry; I am hurriedly trying to work out what the Lib Dems’ position is. I am sure that I will have clarity at some point. On the point about jobs—these are the developer’s figures—there are 27 direct jobs from the project, but it is also about safeguarding 273 existing jobs. It is actually about something much broader than that: it is about an industry that is in transition, and we have to do what we can to protect that industry while we build what comes next. I have been clear on that throughout my time as Energy Minister. I gently say that we should accept that the wider economic impact of jobs does go down to the person buying a sandwich in the shop. When we see big industry leave towns—I am a Lanarkshire MP, and I know the impact of coalmine closures and steel closures in my constituency—we do see those small businesses leave and, with them, the important jobs that a community relies on. I do not think we should talk down the importance of the wider economic impact of this decision.

    Hansard source
28. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Michael Shanks

    Jackdaw Gasfield

    I give my hon. Friend that assurance. The amount of gas that will come onshore into our UK supply is about 5% of our production—6% at the peak. We have a diverse range of suppliers from the UK continental shelf, from Norway and from LNG imports. This decision will not change the fact that the country became a net importer of fossil fuels 20 years ago, but it does play a part in the security of supply. That was part of the balancing act against the environmental considerations that my hon. Friend rightly notes. As I have said before, the determination made by the Secretary of State is that we are able to do that while meeting the climate objectives. I absolutely give my hon. Friend the assurance that the decision does not move us away at all from those commitments; in fact, the £2 billion committed from the revenues will help us turbocharge the investment in clean energy.

    Hansard source
29. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Michael Shanks

    Jackdaw Gasfield

    The hon. Lady speaks about 50 years; I am not quite sure what the SNP’s energy policy is right now. It changes from minute to minute, and it changes depending on whether the First Minister is in Aberdeen or somewhere else in the country. I cannot quite fathom it. The Scottish Government put out a statement today, which I read three or four times, and I still was not clear whether they support Jackdaw or not. The hon. Lady is a good supporter of the industry and I recognise that, but as for the rest of her party, I am not quite so sure. The point about investment in renewables is important. We have been clear that the revenue from this project will be invested in renewables projects across the UK. For the vast majority of those, we are already seeing the investment going into Scotland, in supply chains as well as in the infrastructure itself. It is easy for the hon. Lady to talk down Great British Energy, but its headquarters in Aberdeen is already helping to deliver investment in supply chains in Scotland. That is £1 billion of investment so that we are not towing in renewables infrastructure to the “Saudi Arabia of renewables”, as the former leader of her party called it, that is all built somewhere else, but building it in Britain. That is where the jobs come from. That is really important, and I hope we can all get behind this idea. I thought the hon. Lady’s party agreed that public ownership of energy is important, that public investment in energy is important and that the transition needs investment at every stage, so I hope that there are clearer areas for us to work together. However, as I say, we are still waiting on the SNP’s energy policy three years on, so I am not quite sure what it is at the moment.

    Hansard source
30. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Michael Shanks

    Jackdaw Gasfield

    I will always agree about high-quality jobs in Lanarkshire. It was a pleasure to visit my hon. Friend’s constituency to see the opening of the RES facility in Bellshill. It is an important example of a part of his constituency that will not have renewables projects directly deployed, but which can still get the jobs from the operations and maintenance of wind farms across Scotland, along with the jobs and apprenticeships being created as a result. The jobs that go along with the energy transition are at the heart of the Government’s agenda to deliver reindustrialisation and growth in every postcode. For too long, Governments have been agnostic about where we build things and we have seen manufacturing capacity depleted in communities such as my hon. Friend’s and others right across the country. We are seeking to reverse that with the investments we are making and to get good jobs in every single part of the country.

    Hansard source
31. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Michael Shanks

    Jackdaw Gasfield

    I said in my statement that in the transition to clean energy, we will continue to need oil and gas. The UK continental shelf continues to be an important source of that, but we have been a net importer for more than two decades and no amount of consenting decisions will change that fact. It is important, however, and I have said that that 6% of production matters. That is why we have made the decision we have made today. The important thing about pragmatism—I have said this a number of times—is that it has to work both ways. We previously had a consensus that oil and gas and renewables went hand in hand, in the transition to what comes next. The Conservatives built lots of renewables and now dismiss the fact that they are important to the system. I welcome the investment the previous Government made in renewables; it is just a shame that they have lost their way so much that they do not support it now.

    Hansard source
32. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Michael Shanks

    Jackdaw Gasfield

    My hon. Friend is a great champion for making sure that the transition has workers at its heart, both in his constituency and across Scotland. The developer estimates that there will be 27 direct jobs on the project, which is all that we are able to take into account with regard to the decision that I can talk about today. Of course, a significant number of jobs in oil and gas come from the wider impacts on the supply chain—things such as travel to and from offshore rigs and wider jobs in the north-east of Scotland—and jobs that might otherwise have been lost are also safeguarded. It is important to look at both sides. On the question of jobs, I have always been really clear that we cannot just look at one side of a balance sheet and the jobs being lost. Energy transition means people moving from one part of an industry to another. We should not just look at jobs being lost in one area without following through to where those jobs end up, whether it is in other parts of the energy industry, in nuclear, in defence or in advanced manufacturing. One of the things we will launch soon is the future jobs service, which will support workers all the way through that process, giving them the necessary retraining so they can take up the opportunities in the future. That is how we will keep the workforce delivering in energy in Scotland.

    Hansard source
33. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Michael Shanks

    Jackdaw Gasfield

    No, that is where we fundamentally disagree. We agree on the need to tackle the climate crisis, but our response has to be based in reality. The reality is that however much I want us to be able to get off fossil fuels tomorrow, that is not going to happen. We have to build the infrastructure that helps us get to that place. I am afraid that the Greens oppose the very infrastructure—they oppose wind farms, they oppose pylons, they oppose solar farms, they oppose nuclear—that gets us off fossil fuels, then they come here and complain that we are reliant on fossil fuels for longer than we have to be. They are the problem in building the transition that we need. I am glad to see the hon. Lady, because the Greens very rarely turn up to energy debates in this House. Across the country, so-called Green politicians have stopped renewable energy projects getting off the ground. It is always, “Not here, somewhere else,” or, “Not today, some other time.” The time to build is now and they have to get behind it if they want us to get off fossil fuels.

    Hansard source
34. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Michael Shanks

    Jackdaw Gasfield

    I had a great visit to my hon. Friend’s constituency recently to see the importance of solar panels in a project there. We need to see much more of that investment, because our energy sovereignty in the long term comes from us being able to produce the energy we need here in the UK. That means electrifying the economy and generating that electricity through a decarbonised power system, but the transition to get there, not least on heat and in industry, will still require gas for a long time to come—we, as a Government, have been clear on that from the beginning. We are not about turning off the taps in the North sea, so our energy security has to take both those directions at the same time: building the industry we need for the future now while ensuring that we have the supply we need for the here and now. The Government are focused on both.

    Hansard source
35. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Michael Shanks

    Jackdaw Gasfield

    The hon. Gentleman is a great champion of the industry, and I know that he does a huge amount on this. I agree with him entirely: geothermal is a huge opportunity and I know that there are projects starting to come much closer to delivery. We want to see much more of that, and I recognise there is more we need to do. I do not want to get into discussions on ringfences within the fund, because the danger is that that could hold back the money from projects that are ready to deploy, but I am certainly happy to speak to him about other projects and what more we can do.

    Hansard source
36. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Michael Shanks

    Jackdaw Gasfield

    It is good to hear from the MP for my old home—he is my mother’s MP and a great champion for Ayrshire. Ayrshire has a critical role, and it could have an even more important role if we were to build new nuclear at Hunterston, which, if it were not for the objections of the SNP, we could be looking at much more seriously. He is right to point to the fact that there are huge opportunities around supply chain jobs. We have had a meeting at a port in his constituency to talk about the opportunities there. The real drive behind this is the clean energy transition for our energy security, but reindustrialisation off the back of that will create good jobs in every single part of the country. We need to dispel the idea that we cannot manufacture things in Britain and actually get back to building things in every single part of the country.

    Hansard source
37. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Michael Shanks

    Jackdaw Gasfield

    The hon. Gentleman talks about needing to have set up wealth funds a long time ago. I probably would not disagree with him on much of that, but I would just point out that the Scottish Government have the ScotWind fund, which they are currently drawing down to meet the deficit in their own spending. That is not building a legacy for the future; it is using it to paper over the cracks in the fiscal competence of the SNP Government. The hon. Gentleman might welcome this decision, but I am genuinely still not sure what the SNP’s position is more generally. Nevertheless, I welcome his support for it. The hon. Gentleman is right to mention the Acorn project. He and I have had useful conversations about it, and the Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, my hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde and Renfrewshire West (Martin McCluskey), who is next to me on the Front Bench, is the Minister responsible for carbon capture, usage and storage now. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, a sales process is now going through, and we continue to be very supportive of that process. We have set aside funding to support the project. The hon. Gentleman is also right to flag the question of approvals for projects. Some of that sits with us, but most of it at the moment is involved in a bottleneck on consenting decisions, which are the responsibility of the Scottish Government. I know I have done a bit of point scoring here, but in line with the problem solving driver for this Government, I would just say that I have a really good relationship with Stephen Gethins, the Scottish Government Energy Minister. We are working together on a lot of these things, but we need to get the consenting decisions made much more quickly so that projects can get out and get built.

    Hansard source
38. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Michael Shanks

    Jackdaw Gasfield

    I agree with my hon. Friend. I have visited Torness and met the incredibly skilled workforce there. What I find difficult about the Scottish Government’s position on jobs in Scotland is that they are willing to completely turn their back on the skilled workers in nuclear power, who are going searching for jobs in nuclear projects in England or elsewhere, rather than supporting and nurturing those jobs in Scotland today. Never mind the fact that every single day of the week, Scotland’s energy security relies on the firm nuclear power coming out of Torness nuclear power station. We have to remove that ideological block, which is just an anti-science approach to technology. That will help us to get off fossil fuels and deliver clean power and incredibly good, well-paid jobs in Scotland, and I really hope the SNP will change its position.

    Hansard source
39. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Michael Shanks

    Jackdaw Gasfield

    I am tempted to say that it is certainly not a question for me, but I will answer the first part of the right hon. Gentleman’s question. To be really clear, we came into Government with a judgment by the Court of Session that quashed the decisions, which required us then to put in place a process that considered the scope 3 emissions as part of a consenting regime. We had to design that process, consult on it with industry, get to a place where it was a practical process and then consider the applications. We have done that, and we have done it as quickly as we possibly could.

    Hansard source
40. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Michael Shanks

    Jackdaw Gasfield

    The pathway to net zero by 2050 has to accommodate the fact that we will require oil and gas, one way or another, while we are in that transition. The choices open to the Government are to continue extraction from the North sea, which we will do with existing fuels and existing consented fields, or to import from other places. We are obviously importing from Norway, which has generally cleaner imports than anywhere else, but we also rely on LNG imports, which have a higher carbon intensity. The decision therefore involves a balancing act on how we deal with the requirement for oil and gas from different places, and the Secretary of State’s decision has been made after weighing up all the evidence on the fact that we are able to make this consenting decision within the boundaries of our legally set carbon budgets.

    Hansard source