North Sea Oil and Gas
Will the hon. Member give way on that point?
Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,731 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
- Hansard source
- Hansard source
North Sea Oil and Gas
On that basis, why do the Government feel it necessary to ban new licences? The Minister says that production is declining, so why do they need to ban them?
- Hansard source
Climate Change
Will the Minister give way?
- Hansard source
Climate Change
This is incredibly frustrating. Scrutiny is not the same as climate change denial. Asking questions on behalf of our constituents, industries, households and businesses that will front the costs of this measure is not climate change denial. Will the hon. Member and the rest of the Labour Members here recognise that?
- Hansard source
Climate Change
I will use my time to draw attention to parts of the impact assessment, because we are, after all, debating the carbon budget. First, this budget allows for 37% of our energy consumption by 2040 still to come from oil and gas. The Climate Change Committee itself is allowing for oil and gas to be included in our energy mix into the years to come. On that basis, why are the Government still committed to banning new licences in the North sea? Why are they still committed to the energy profits levy? Why are they still stopping the permitting of Rosebank and Jackdaw? All that will do is increase our imports of more carbon-intensive oil and gas, which is not good for the climate, economy or jobs in the UK. That point can also be found in the impact assessment. Secondly, reaching the carbon budget will require an “electrification of industry”. That means a reduction in our industrial capacity. The electrification of steel means a move away from blast furnaces, which will mean we lose our virgin steel capacity. Virgin steel is used for other industries as well, such as defence and civil nuclear, so we are going to hinder our civil nuclear capacity by reducing our virgin steel capacity. Thirdly, the impact assessment—I hope Members have read it, but I am not so sure—says that “a faster transition to renewables will not eliminate global supply chain risks.” It is not true, no matter how often it is said, that reducing our reliance on oil and gas and upscaling renewables makes us less vulnerable to global pressures. It does not. This impact assessment says it does not. We must recognise that everything has a cost and a risk, including renewables. I will bring my remarks to an end shortly, because I do not want to speak for too long. We must be realistic and pragmatic. As my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking) pointed out, this carbon budget assumes that we will reduce our meat and dairy consumption by 25%. It assumes that we will put a cost on households of thousands of pounds, which far exceeds any £300 saving on energy bills, were this Government to achieve it. China is not putting these costs on businesses or households, and it is not closing down its domestic industries. China is opening 50 to 70 GW of new coal every year. It has almost 1,200 coal-fired power stations, which it is using to export its renewables technology to us—it does not make sense. China is responsible for over a third of global emissions, and we are responsible for 1%. We are not making a difference to global climate change by impoverishing our businesses, industries and households. We said that we wanted to lead, but there is no point in leading if nobody is following. The key players are not following.
- Hansard source
Climate Change
I am sure the hon. Lady has a gotcha for me on that one. I believe it has either not set a target or it is 20 years, but I could not tell her which.
- Hansard source
Climate Change
My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Douglas Lumsden) was returned on 50% of the vote because of the people who actually feel this. The jobs of the residents of Aberdeen South and north-east Scotland are being lost, daily and monthly, because of the rundown of the oil and gas sector and because of the eco-zealotry of this Government, who want to hit their net zero target faster than anyone else. That is the reality, and it is costing jobs and livelihoods. I have knocked on hundreds, probably thousands, of doors in Aberdeen South in the last month. I have met so many people in their 30s and early 40s, with young children, who lost their job because of this Government’s anti-North sea oil and gas policies. I do not call them anti-oil and gas policies, because the Government will happily take it from abroad. They will happily import liquefied natural gas and Russian-derived oil and gas products; they just do not want oil and gas products from the UK. Until we get over the obsession with running down our own industries, and with meeting a target that no one else is aiming for, the UK will suffer. Our industries, skilled workers and future economy will suffer. No other country will follow us if we do that. No other country is looking at the UK as an example. They are looking at the UK as an opportunity to export more of their refined goods and their manufacturing, because they know we are running down our industries here, but they will not copy our lead on reducing emissions because they can see the impact it is having on our economy and our energy bills. We are missing so many opportunities. Who is going to invest in AI and data centres here when we have four times the electricity costs of the US? They just will not, as there is no incentive. Driving down our agriculture to hit a net zero target is madness. We need food, which I hope is not controversial, but all we will do is import more. All that driving down the amount of our agriculture will do is free up more land for the Government to put solar panels on, which might help them with their target, but it is not going to help with our food production, and nor will it help our rural communities. I will happily vote against these measures today. I have happily read the impact assessment, and I do not believe that this is best for my constituents, best for the country or best for the economy.
- Hansard source
Farming: Financial Sustainability
Would my hon. Friend agree that another uncertainty is coming down the path? The Climate Change Committee is asking farmers to reduce livestock numbers by up to 40%. That would devastate and make unviable so many farms—complete madness.
- Hansard source
Farming: Financial Sustainability
Does the Minister accept that it is a choice made by this Government—maybe not by DEFRA, but by the Treasury—to bring in the carbon tax from 1 January? The Government cannot change events in the middle east, but they could choose to delay or scrap that tax.
- Hansard source
Media Green Paper
I add my voice to those concerned about the transfer to TV over IP. Technology moves very fast, and I accept at face value the Secretary of State’s commitment that no one will be left behind. However, we have had 20 years of change, from fibre to cabinet and now fibre to premises, yet some of my constituents are still on copper to premises, surviving on download speeds of 2 or 3 megabits per second, which is not capable of getting television into their homes, whether the switchover is in 2034 or later. Can I urge the Secretary of State, before any decision is made, to work very closely with DSIT? No matter what the core statistics say about how many homes have fibre to premises, people will still be left behind, particularly in rural communities. Added to that, in many villages where there is only one fibre provider and no competition, there is fibre and there is fibre, and not all of it is as reliable as it looks.
- Hansard source
Farming Road Map and Profitability Review
Farmers have been innovating since the dawn of time, and they really do not need a word salad document to tell them that it might be a good idea. I have listened carefully to the Secretary of State’s answers on fertiliser, both in terms of the current price shock and the impending additional shock, made by this Government, of carbon taxes on fertiliser. Surely, while there is lofty ambition for long-term innovation, there needs to be a direct answer and relief now on the shock that is going to come in January.
- Hansard source
Media Green Paper
Many of my constituents in Epping Forest are very worried about proposals to stop terrestrial TV broadcasts from 2034. Like local radio, for many people in both urban and rural areas, and for older and more vulnerable people, terrestrial TV is a lifeline in their daily lives. Will the Government have a strong rethink about this?
- Hansard source
Engagements
Did you meet Andy?
- Hansard source
Farming: Financial Sustainability
The hon. Member is right to say that we need to produce more food in this country but, at the moment, farmers are telling me that they are not putting crops in the ground because they cannot afford the fertiliser to sustain them because of the situation in the Gulf. What does the hon. Member think the Government should do to support farmers right now?
- Hansard source
Farming Road Map and Profitability Review
Wiltshire farmers listened to Ministers at the Oxford farming conference and heard the Government’s pledge to support farmers during difficult harvests and supply shocks. They now find that they are in the middle of a supply shock, with many considering whether to plant their fields right now because of the price of fertiliser, about a third of which comes through the strait of Hormuz. If the pledge was more than rhetorical, is the Secretary of State able to say what practical measures the Government will be executing right now to assist the people I have just described?
- Hansard source
North Sea Oil and Gas
Does my hon. Friend agree that the clear message that the people of Aberdeen sent last week was that they support the oil and gas sector and the jobs that come with it, and that it is much better that we produce oil and gas ourselves? It is much better for our jobs, our economy and the environment if we produce more in this country, rather than relying on imports.
- Hansard source
North Sea Oil and Gas
Draft 1 of the Scottish Government’s energy strategy was released over three years ago, with a presumption against new oil and gas. Does the hon. Member agree that that is damaging, and that it is time the SNP scrapped that policy?
- Hansard source
North Sea Oil and Gas
Will the hon. Member give way?
- Hansard source
Draft Local Government (Structural and Boundary Changes) (Control of Disposals etc.) (Amendment) Order 2026
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. As the Minister set out, the order makes a relatively straightforward technical change, but I have a couple of questions arising from it that relate to the specific circumstances in which the legislation is coming forward. Historically, the policy has been that local government reorganisation would take place where there was unambiguous local consent for that to happen. We are all conscious that, as part of the devolution priority programme, some disputes are already arising—which I think the legislation is designed to address—between the new authorities that are coming into being and the prior authorities that are being abolished. Local authorities operate to a specific financial process that is quite tightly controlled in legislation, and that is where my questions for the Minister arise from. First, the provisions in this legislation set out that the Secretary of State will designate a person who will be required to give consent, or will have the opportunity to give or withhold consent, when transactions covered by the legislation are envisaged. It would be helpful to understand what process will be followed when there is a dispute. My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne gave an example of where the disposal of an asset might be seen by one authority as hugely beneficial because of a capital receipt, and by another as hugely controversial because it pledged to protect it from excessive development. We need, then, clarity about how disputes of that nature will be resolved. The process is significant because many of the capital sales that will be caught by the provisions are also determined by other processes. Will the Minister set it out for the Committee, in particular regrading authorities that are subject to exceptional financial support rules? If a local authority in Surrey—such as Spelthorne or Woking, which have very significant capital debts—has entered into an agreement with the Government to undertake a programme of disposal of assets, and the disposal of those assets is opposed by the successor authority, how will a decision come to be made, given that the outgoing authority is effectively obliged to undertake those asset sales but the new authority may not wish to do that? A good example of where the nature of the assets may be material to the dispute is car parks, which are an asset to the parking-revenue account of a local authority, so are ringfenced from its general fund. One authority may see a car park as an opportunity to raise revenue, whereas another authority may see it as a capital asset to be disposed of to secure a capital receipt. Especially where there is a capital programme over many years with, in some cases, the capital expenditure having already taken place, to be funded from future asset disposals, there will need to be a process to ensure that the budgets can be balanced. We will all be aware of local authorities in our own areas that have borrowed to build new leisure centres or new schools, or to invest in public transport hubs, parking or whatever it may be—important public assets to be funded from the future sale of those sites for disposal. We therefore need that sense of clarity. Can the Minister tell the Committee how the provisions will be dealt with when the assets in question arise within an arm’s length management organisation for housing that is owned by a local authority trading company—such as Brick by Brick, the housing development company in Croydon, of which there are a number of alike organisations across the country—to which assets have been transferred for development or disposal? There is no explicit clarity, certainly not within this legislation, about how that will be managed. What about asset disposals within a programme relevant to the Department for Education? These may be school sites or non-school sites whose asset value is designed to support the development of school sites and which sit within the dedicated schools grant. Would the decision to determine who gives consent to that process be a matter for the Department for Education, rather than the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government? I think especially of situations in which a school has been transferred under the standard 99-year academy lease. Who will be the decision maker if the academy trust wishes to dispose of all or part of that site? I would like to put the question about how overage clauses, which will exist in many of these agreements, will be treated. Clearly, the upside of some of these disposals, which are often controlled both through the planning process and through the original transaction, will say that, in the event that the acquirer of the site returns to gain planning permission for a higher-density development, or something that yields a higher amount, they have to pay a proportion of the increase in the value of the site to the local authority that disposed of it. That is designed to avoid a situation in which a site is sold for 20 houses and ends up with 150 flats on it, and the developer basically cleans up. That is a common clause contained within site disposals by local authorities. To whom would the benefit of that overage clause accrue? Especially in circumstances where the benefit was intended to be taken into account as part of that prior capital programme, what provisions will there be to resolve those disputes in the event that they arise?
- Hansard source
Draft Lifelong Learning (Fee Limits) Regulations 2026
We all knew that!
- Hansard source
Draft Lifelong Learning (Fee Limits) Regulations 2026
Like everyone who has spoken, I support the principle of the lifelong learning entitlement. I welcomed it in Sir Philip Augar’s review, which reported while I was at the Department for Education. I was pleased that it was brought in by my erstwhile right hon. Friends for Chichester and Harlow. It is true that higher education in this country has been too rigid for too long. The lifelong learning entitlement eliminates the “do it now or do it never” problem. It makes the most of talent, and it means that people can move into growing sectors in the economy, or just new areas of interest, and learn what they need to learn. For all those reasons, it is also good for productivity. This statutory instrument is not about the existence of the lifelong learning entitlement, nor is it about the existence—or the level—of the fee; it is just about the modularisation of that fee. I have a couple of short questions to put to the Minister. The first touches on what the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire was just saying: there is a question of debt aversion. That did not happen, as was widely predicted, after the Vince Cable reforms in the early 2010s—the great risk of debt aversion among young people did not turn out to be true. However, this is mostly about an older demographic, with different sets of responsibilities, at a different life stage. What research has been done about that? I wonder whether the Minister might say a word about the levels of enrolment in the pilots that the Department for Education undertook, and what we have learned. Is there a risk of people being reluctant? There is a psychological barrier if there is a fixed lifetime maximum. What do we know about people’s possible reluctance to eat into that at a certain level, rather than leaving it intact? Has there been any research on that? Conversely, is there a risk of overselling the modules, given the terms of the loan and what may seem to many people—low earners in particular—quite low risk in taking one out? Are there specific risks of gaming from moving to a system in which providers will be paid according to a number of credits? As my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor rightly said, there are particular questions around that for online courses. Credits and modules have long existed in this country, but breaking up a course or stretch of study, or moving from one institution to another, has not been nearly as prevalent in this country as in others, whether in Europe through the Bologna system or indeed the United States. What will the Government do to ensure that the amounts that are involved in this statutory instrument will represent value for individuals, with comparability of the modules, full recognition when that module is taken somewhere else, and a culture change in our higher education system?
- Hansard source
Media Green Paper
This House ended the licensing of the press on 3 May 1695, when it declined to renew the relevant legislation. That makes the definition of news sources difficult. Perhaps that is why the Green Paper talks about prominence for public service media and “potentially” for local and national news sources. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is unthinkable to have a situation where we would be promoting BBC and Channel 4 news, but not our major national newspapers and trusted local news sources?
- Hansard source
Media Green Paper
The Secretary of State knows as well as I do that the media landscape is changing so quickly that no sooner was the ink dry on the Media Act 2024 than it was almost obsolete. We know that for the first time YouTube has overtaken the BBC in audience reach, which is why the Green Paper is really welcome, but I wonder whether it is a first step towards a new and more extensive media Bill that reflects the nation’s viewing habits and reaches a definitive definition of television. The Green Paper talks about new television when talking about video-sharing platforms, YouTube and so on. We need a new definition of television to reflect technological change. Finally, the consultation refers to media literacy, but surely if we are really planning to future-proof that, we should be talking about AI literacy too—and not just for children.
- Hansard source
Topical Questions
The Government’s Islamophobia definition is already being weaponised to shut down free speech, just as I warned it would. South Wales police tried to use it to effectively criminalise people for criticising Islam, which Ministers promised us time and again would not happen. Does the Minister understand how divisive that is? If so, will she finally withdraw that dangerous definition?
- Hansard source
Topical Questions
Asking officers to record examples of an illegitimate criticism of Islam is nothing short of an assault on free speech. Let me try another issue: last night, Labour MPs voted to give children as young as 11 powerful puberty-blocking drugs that could leave them infertile for the rest of their lives. The right hon. Lady is the Cabinet Minister for children and she knows that children in the care system are over-represented in that group. This cannot sit right with her. Will she do the right thing and tell the Health Secretary to stop the puberty-blocking trial?
- Hansard source
Climate Change
Today, we are voting on something hugely consequential: a new net zero target that will allow Ministers and civil servants to control almost every part of the economy and the cost of goods in every aspect of people’s lives. It will affect the cost of energy, food, housing, heating, transport, holidays and shipping, and which industries will find it competitive to do business in Britain and which industries will not. Yet in this Chamber can anybody put a figure on how much more expensive this will make food or energy bills or family holidays?
- Hansard source
Climate Change
I will happily give way for the hon. Gentleman to cite the figure.
- Hansard source
Climate Change
I note that the hon. Gentleman did not answer my question, because he does not have an answer. Let me answer his question: on an electricity bill, 25% of the cost is a wholesale cost, and 75% is a non-commodity cost. Bills have gone up so much partly because of the taxes, levies and policies that his Government have chosen.
- Hansard source
Climate Change
No, I will pursue my argument. The vast majority of the costs on an electricity bill are not to do with wholesale prices. The question that I asked the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire (Jonathan Davies) was whether he could tell us—[Interruption.] He should listen to this; he is not even listening to my point. I asked whether he could tell us what the legislation he is voting on today will do to the price of food, energy, and holidays for his constituents.
- Hansard source
Climate Change
Let me try this question: how many Members present can say, hand on heart, that they have read the impact assessment for this legislation?
- Hansard source
Climate Change
The hon. Gentleman says that he has. Could he cite the number of jobs the legislation will create or lose in the overall economy?
- Hansard source
Climate Change
The hon. Gentleman also did not answer my question on jobs. I inherited my party’s position on net zero. I made it clear from the outset that my priority was affordability for Brits in this country, and that net zero should not impoverish consumers. In fact, I made some changes that meant that Labour called me a climate denier and a flat-earther. The hon. Gentleman now comes to this Chamber, not to scrutinise the legislation that will have a massive effect on his constituents, but to criticise me for scrutinising it, asking questions and changing my party’s position. I am proud to have changed my party’s position, because I care about the consumer, about jobs, and about the price of food and energy. None of the Members on the Government Benches seems to care about those things, because if they did—[Interruption.] I will make some progress, because nobody is answering these questions. If they cared about those things, they would have read the Government’s impact assessment.
- Hansard source
Climate Change
Well, the hon. Gentleman could not answer the question on jobs. If he had read it, he would know that the Government’s own impact assessment admits that the modelling does not consider any upside, or downside risks, to the economy arising from the energy transition. It specifically says that it does not consider the impact on jobs. That means that Government Members are voting on legislation without any idea of what it is going to mean for the British worker. The impact assessment is clear and explicit: the modelling does not analyse energy security. The Government do not know what the legislation will mean for the energy security of our nation. The head of Unite was spot on when she said at the weekend that the Secretary of State “only seems to be interested in one side of the equation, rushing Britain to net zero with almost no thought for jobs, skills and national security.” The transition has literally not been properly assessed. What is worse is that Government MPs want to make their political points, but none of them seems to care. Considering how much people are struggling and how much growth is flatlining, are Labour Members really happy to wave through those legal targets without the foggiest idea of what it will do to the economy, the cost of living or energy security?
- Hansard source
Climate Change
If the hon. Gentleman would like to tell us about the impact on jobs, he is more than welcome to do so.
- Hansard source
Climate Change
I will come to the evidence of the Climate Change Committee in a second, but first I note that once again, a Member from the Labour Benches cannot cite an overall figure on jobs—I would have thought that the Labour party would be able to cite a figure on jobs.
- Hansard source
Climate Change
Look, I have given way to a number of hon. Members, and nobody has had an answer. Let me put this to them—
- Hansard source
Climate Change
If it is going to be about jobs, then please—go ahead.
- Hansard source
Climate Change
Oh dear. So the hon. Gentleman has not read that report either, because it includes among those jobs waste, recycling and nuclear power—does he think we did not have those jobs before the net zero target? It also includes soil restoration and land management. It specifically says—[Interruption.] I am sorry; Labour Members do not seem to like this, but I have actually read these reports. They do not seem to realise that that report includes a huge range of things that have nothing to do with the net zero target. I will press on. When the Climate Change Committee provides advice to the Government about what carbon budget target they should set, it uses its own costings and assumptions. Its analysis determines how billions upon billions—that is thousands and thousands of millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money—is spent. I am afraid that is deeply problematic. Why do I say that? Because the cost of offshore wind used to prepare carbon budget 7 was out by a factor of three. The Climate Change Committee said that offshore wind would cost £38 per megawatt-hour, but contracts were being signed by their Secretary of State for £82 per megawatt-hour, suggesting that something was clearly going very wrong on a key input for the exact target that we are voting on today. When I wrote to the Climate Change Committee—
- Hansard source
Climate Change
I will make this point. When I wrote to the Climate Change Committee asking it to look at this matter, it sent me a dismissive reply. So I wrote about it in a newspaper. What did the committee do? It reported me—a democratically elected politician—under the Independent Press Standards Organisation editors’ code and tried to get me to remove my opinion. I did not. Just a few months later, the Government updated their own costings, not to £80 per megawatt-hour or even to £90 per megawatt-hour, but to over £100 per megawatt-hour. That is the Minister’s own figure. That means that not only was I right, but offshore wind was now predicted to cost three times what the Climate Change Committee had said. I do not know which is worse: that we are making huge decisions on the basis of such poor analysis, that nobody on the Government Benches thinks that this warrants any scrutiny, or that an unelected advisory body is using taxpayers’ funds to try to silence elected representatives rather than focusing on getting its costings right. Everybody in this House should think that is shameful. If the committee was wrong by a factor of three on offshore wind—something that we have better evidence for than pretty much anything else in the market—how can we trust any of the rest of its analysis? Let us look at some of the committee’s claims. It claims that a low-carbon electricity supply is “cheaper per unit” than high-carbon electricity. Well, if your numbers are out by a factor of three, perhaps you might think that. It also says that “most businesses will not be…affected by Net Zero”, particularly in the services sector. How does it justify that? Let me assure the House, if net zero blocks the advance of AI in this country, that will have a catastrophic impact on our services sector. Here is another claim: “a reduction in meat…and dairy” will mean a healthier diet. Who are they to tell us what to eat and to give us nutritional advice? The committee makes claim after claim and sweeping statement after sweeping statement with nobody holding it accountable. Yet this advice—this target—will affect almost every part of normal life. Hon. Members may argue that we need strict climate targets to provide certainty for jobs—that is what the Minister just said—but that is nonsense. The country doing the best at creating clean tech jobs is China, which is now the world’s largest polluter. Hon. Members may also say that this is about our moral duty to fix climate change, but I will remind them that every time a British factory shuts here, where we have some of the cleanest electricity in the world, and we import those same goods back from coal-powered China, we are not helping climate change; instead, we are increasing global emissions. Before Labour Members get on their high horse, I will remind them that the Conservatives are the only party to call for the measurement of the offshoring of emissions. Labour does not want to know because it does not care. Here is the problem: Labour Members do not want to properly measure whether we are just trading emissions here for emissions abroad because they do not really care whether this target is actually good for the worker, or good for jobs, or good for the cost of living, or good for the environment. That is why none of them cared to read the impact assessment.
- Hansard source
Climate Change
I have taken interventions from so many Labour Members, and none of them could give a figure—[Interruption.] I will happily give way.