Pippa Heylings

It will not surprise the hon. Gentleman that not only did I allow him to speak, but I agree with him. The decision on Rosebank will be the first major test of the Government’s new approach and the UK’s climate commitments. We need energy security now more than ever in this unstable world. Although we could have properly invested in our transition towards cleaner, cheaper, more efficient energy, successive Governments have instead left the UK in a state of energy insecurity. Because they scrapped zero-carbon homes and insulation schemes, the Conservatives built around 1.6 million homes to lower efficiency standards, costing families in those homes an extra £5 billion in energy bills between 2017 and 2025, and leaving those off-grid exposed to heating oil price spikes, as the hon. Member for Hexham (Joe Morris) described. The Conservatives have pledged that they would continue doing the same if elected. The sad truth is that Britain has not moved anywhere near fast enough when it comes to reducing the demand for gas and oil in our homes and transport, so we need some North sea oil and gas as part of our energy mix for decades to come. However, accepting that reality does not mean supporting every new oil and gas development. When it comes to Rosebank, we Liberal Democrats are clear that the evidence does not meet rigorous climate tests. As my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (John Milne) stated, around 90% of Rosebank’s reserves are oil, most of which will be sold into the global markets, not reserved for British consumers. Rosebank will not necessarily shield households and businesses from the volatility of global energy prices, and so will not bring down people’s bills in my constituency or other constituencies. The oil and gas workers who have powered our economy for generations deserve our gratitude and respect, and they are rightly angry that the number of jobs supported by the North sea over the past decade has more than halved, with no transition in place. That is why we Liberal Democrats are calling for the Just Transition Commission to put them at the heart of the new transition. Ministers must also confront a wider climate issue, as the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) powerfully highlighted. Following the Finch judgment, the full climate impact of oil and gas production can be properly assessed. Rosebank’s projected scope 3 emissions are around seven times greater than those associated with Jackdaw, equivalent to roughly a quarter of the UK’s sixth carbon budget. The Government have stated that the approval of Jackdaw is in line with our legally binding net zero targets, but that is because our net zero targets do not include scope 3 emissions. Will the Government therefore comply with their own policy, following the Finch judgment, that mitigations will be required for scope 3 emissions? None has been set for Jackdaw. Rather than pursuing projects such as Rosebank, we should focus our efforts on accelerating the transition to clean, home-grown energy and to electrification, so that we can use up all this good, clean energy. Will the Minister therefore support the Liberal Democrats’ calls for a national electrification strategy? This debate is about the choices we make for our energy future. Rosebank will not lower bills, it raises serious questions about tax revenues, it will not increase our energy security, and it will not save the North sea—but it will wreck our climate.