Douglas Lumsden

It is a pleasure to serve under your stewardship, Mr Twigg. My constituents will be brutally disappointed with the opening of this debate, and probably with many of the contributions we will hear later. In my constituency, we are proud of our legacy in oil and gas, and we are proud of the jobs. These are good, high-skilled jobs, many of which cannot and will not be replaced by the energy transition, but this is not about jobs just in Aberdeen: as we have heard, thousands of jobs all across the country are supported by continuing oil and gas production. Forcing my constituents out of their jobs and then importing the hydrocarbons they were previously paid to extract is cruel and unnecessary. I do not understand why so many people do not get that argument. Rosebank is desperately needed. It is needed for the almost 3,500 jobs that depend on it, and more importantly, it is needed as a sign that the North sea is open for business. It is needed for the tens of thousands of supply chain jobs up and down the country. We all know that the North sea is a declining basin—we have heard it already; we get that. It will not last forever, but it would be economic suicide to pay for more imports rather than extract ourselves, with all the jobs and tax revenue that that brings. Not only does the hon. Member for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer) suggest that we miss out on billions of pounds in tax revenue, which could fund any ideas that she cares to go for, but it is clear that not supporting Rosebank means supporting higher carbon emissions. We know that importing more oil and gas to fuel our country is expensive and more carbon intensive. This is insane. Why are we even considering this? I am sure that many Members in this House would be quite comfortable buying Putin’s oil instead—I say, “No, no, no.” Every barrel that we can produce locally benefits us here.