Lord Moynihan (Con)

My Lords, I declare my interest as chairman of Amey, Acteon and Buckthorn Partners, which show an interest in energy transition. However, on this occasion, it is a rather tenuous link to this specific debate, since only Acteon provides global subsea services to both offshore wind and oil and gas in stations around the world. I warmly welcome the Minister to this debate. Sadly, I did not have the opportunity to spend time with him in the House of Commons, as I preceded him. He looks exceptionally young, healthy and fit, so it comes as a surprise that we did not have that opportunity. He is now approaching the 10th anniversary of the support to his constituency of three significant donors, who were very welcome to his constituency and his ability as a Member of Parliament at the time: namely, Tony Blair, GMB and Unite. Those three happen to be completely united in their opposition to the Government’s policy on issuing new licences for oil and gas in the North Sea. This is therefore an opportunity for me to question whether the Minister shares the views of those to whom he was so close in another place, all of whom were sound on the policy of oil and gas. I remind him of what they stand for and have said. On protecting jobs and energy security, Sharon Graham said: “North Sea workers are losing their jobs, at a time when the need for domestic oil and gas has never been greater”. Unite said: “There can be no blocks on North Sea oil and gas until real, comparable jobs are created. Protect jobs, protect energy security and deliver a just transition”. On the just transition and Labour’s policies, Sharon Graham said: “North Sea workers cannot be sacrificed on the altar of net zero… We should not be letting go of one rope until we have hold of another”. Gary Smith stated recently: “If the North Sea is being prematurely closed down and we are increasing import dependence—that’s bad for jobs, economic growth and national security”. I turn to the statutory instrument. It is the view on our side of the Committee that the Government need to provide far greater clarity on why they need to increase so dramatically the fees paid by our North Sea oil and gas industry, and for the second time in one year—a point echoed by both noble Lords in their contributions. Increasing costs even further will only further threaten the viability of an industry that is already struggling with the Government’s ban on new exploration and drilling licences and their decision to continue with the energy profits levy. We have already heard from noble Lords some of the results of the Government’s consultation on this subject, and some concerns, on which I might take a different angle. I quote from the consultation: “Several respondents also highlighted that the percentage increase appeared high when compared with general inflation, questioning whether the scale of the uplift was proportionate”. There were very real concerns about the timing, because “the proposal for revised hourly rates” will “take effect part-way through a financial year rather than from the start of a new financial year. Respondents indicated that introducing changes mid-year could”— I would argue that it will— “create challenges for budgeting and financial planning as many organisations set budgets annually”.