The Offshore Petroleum Licensing Bill

Supports the bill as it provides energy security, protects jobs in the oil and gas sector, secures billions in tax revenue, and facilitates a transition towards net zero emissions. Argues that domestic production has lower carbon emissions compared to imports from abroad.

Questions the Secretary of State's claims about renewables and highlights the resignation of an energy tsar in protest against government policies.

Asks if licences will only be issued for domestic oil and gas consumption, questioning the scope of the licensing policy.

Supports local extraction over imports, citing that 88% of extracted UK gas remains in Britain as an argument for domestic production.

Challenges the carbon intensity claims regarding imported LNG from Norway and emphasises the need to focus on consumption emissions rather than production alone.

Supports extending similar policies to British overseas territories like the Falkland Islands, advocating for unlocking oilfields there and ensuring British jobs.

The Bill will not cut bills, is unnecessary according to the NSTA's confidential minutes, and goes against climate commitments. It lacks support from former Prime Ministers, COP presidents, and net zero tsars.

Intervened to state that the Bill will bring down bills by supporting renewables and raising taxes. She implied that Labour's position would not reduce energy costs for people.

Sharma expressed concern that the Bill reinforces a negative perception of the UK's commitment to climate action. He highlighted that the North Sea Transition Authority already has the authority to grant licences annually and can do so outside this new annual duty, questioning the necessity of the Bill. He also pointed out that the oil and gas extracted is owned by private enterprises, making it difficult for the Government to control where it is sold. Sharma supported expanding home-grown clean energy as a means to enhance domestic energy security and lower bills. Additionally, he emphasised the importance of an orderly transition from fossil fuels to clean energy while supporting retraining workers in the oil and gas sector for new jobs in renewables.

Western interjected to express concern that such legislation could undermine international interest and investment appetite, particularly from nations like Korea and Japan which see the UK as having expertise in offshore wind development. He argued that this would harm the market for British clean energy technology.

Russell-Moyle interjected to question the logic behind the Government's stance, noting that almost all UK oil is exported and processed elsewhere, thus complicating efforts to accurately gauge its carbon intensity. This intervention further underscores concerns about the effectiveness of the Bill in addressing climate goals.

The Bill undermines the North Sea Transition Authority's ability to assess licences. It does not provide evidence-based assessment, contrary to government claims. The Scottish National Party argues for a bold plan to accelerate electrification from renewables and opposes the current licensing regime as it comes at the cost of a just transition.

Expressed concern about continued membership in the energy charter treaty, which restricts sovereign independence and could hinder transition policies.

Argued that keeping new licences going will help diminish the negative impact of net zero on certain people, providing more job security during transition periods.

Asked for clarity on the Scottish National party's current position regarding issuing new oil and gas licences, highlighting employment concerns in constituencies reliant on this industry.

Supports the amendment for reasons of national energy security, affordability, economic benefits, and investment in low-carbon sectors. Emphasises the need for policy stability to attract private capital. Argues that domestic oil and gas production has a lower carbon footprint compared to imported LNG. Highlights the importance of maintaining exploration opportunities to support nascent low-carbon technologies.

Ms. Champion is concerned that the Bill will cause more harm than good and does not address the immediate need for lower energy bills for her constituents. She argues that new production of oil and gas would not necessarily bring down energy prices but could do so indirectly, which she finds illogical. She highlights Ernst & Young’s finding that the UK has become less attractive to invest in renewables due to a recent diminishment of green policies and cites that three-quarters of North Sea oil and gas operators invest nothing in UK renewables. Furthermore, she raises concerns about the impact on lower-income countries who are more vulnerable to climate change despite contributing minimal emissions, stating the Government’s approach as nonsensical.

Mr. Dave Doogan states that whether the demand for oil and gas is met through existing or future licences is a moot point, suggesting there isn't a direct link between job security and new licences issued.

Mr. Sammy Wilson agrees that an answer saying it's a moot point is not appropriate for the 90,000 employees in Scotland and 200,000 across the UK who rely on oil and gas jobs.

Mr. David Duguid supports the Bill and welcomes offshore wind projects being developed off coasts, with operations and maintenance facilities in his constituency and others.

Griffith argues against the Bill, citing it as a step backwards in tackling climate change. She emphasises the need for prioritising renewable energy and highlights past failures of the government in promoting wind power, floating offshore wind, solar and marine technologies.

Jo Gideon supports the Bill, arguing that it recognises the need to transition away from oil and gas production while maintaining energy security. She highlights the growing investment in renewables and the transferability of skills for workers moving from oil and gas to offshore renewables. Gideon raises concerns about Labour's lack of a plan regarding the country’s energy needs, emphasising the current reliance on UK-produced gas. She also discusses the cost implications of insulating terraced houses in areas like Stoke-on-Trent, suggesting that there should be a broader discussion about housing solutions. Additionally, she supports carbon capture and storage technology as crucial for reducing emissions from North Sea oil and gas production activities.

During interventions, Wera Hobhouse questioned the cost implications of carbon capture and storage technology proposed by Jo Gideon. She suggested that such technology is also very expensive.

Mr Gardiner argues that the Bill is founded on lies, reduces investment in clean energy, delays transition to renewables, and undermines Britain's global leadership. He notes new licences contribute minimally to total gas supply but significantly to environmental harm and reduced green investment. The bill does nothing for fuel poverty or protecting nature.

Mr Duguid questions Mr Gardiner's assessment of production decline rates, suggesting that North Sea oil and gas is predicted to decline by 7%, while licences allow for a sustainable pathway towards the 1.5° target.

Mr Stuart points out that weakening one part of the energy sector with no new licences would damage emerging clean sectors, highlighting positive roles played by companies like Harbour Energy in carbon capture.

Ms Hobhouse mentions that her party introduced an amendment to stop flaring and venting of methane, which was opposed by the Government. This highlights missed opportunities for cross-party consensus.

Mr. Duguid argues that new oil and gas production is essential for maintaining energy security, reducing reliance on foreign imports, and supporting the transition to net zero emissions. He notes that even with the shift towards renewables, the UK remains highly dependent on oil and gas for heat and transportation. The decline in domestic oil and gas fields necessitates new production to avoid a rapid decline in output. He also highlights the economic benefits of protecting jobs and skills within the industry.

Mr. MacAskill argues against the purpose of the Bill, stating it is political grandstanding and fails to meet the needs of those struggling with heating their homes in Scotland, the Scottish economy, and the planet's requirements. He emphasises the need for a just transition at a pace that allows for skill retention and continued extraction of oil and gas while transitioning towards renewables. MacAskill also highlights the importance of retaining Grangemouth refinery and calls on the UK Government to ensure investment for the hydrocracker to increase profitability, which would cost a fraction of the benefits derived from North Sea oil over the years.

Mr. Mayhew argued in favour of oil and gas exploration, stating that it supports decarbonisation efforts by reducing demand rather than supply. He cited the strong record of the Conservative party on climate change, highlighting a reduction in emissions from 495.8 million tonnes to 320 million tonnes under their watch. He also emphasised four key reasons for supporting UK oil and gas: maintaining employment within the UK; ensuring geopolitical stability by providing alternatives to Russian gas; generating tax revenue estimated at £30 billion over five years; and balancing the payments deficit. Mr Mayhew stressed that climate change would be addressed through alternative energy sources such as wind, solar, nuclear, and electric vehicles.

Ms. Lucas intervened to criticise Mr Mayhew's reliance on the Climate Change Committee’s endorsement of oil and gas exploration, stating that it does not support new explorations as being incompatible with net zero obligations.

Mr. Duguid intervened to clarify that gas produced in Qatar has a similar carbon footprint to UK gas, but transportation quadruples this footprint.

Ms. Hobhouse asked Mr Mayhew about government subsidies for oil and gas exploration, requesting a specific figure.

Mr. Western agreed with Mr Mayhew’s point about reducing demand for hydrocarbons, highlighting poor insulation in newly built houses as a major issue.

The speaker argues that the Bill serves corporate interests rather than those of constituents. She mentions record profits by BP and Shell while constituents face soaring energy bills, criticising the government’s tax regime favouring fossil fuel companies. The North Sea oil and gas industry is accused of causing climate damage with minimal public benefit, advocating for a green new deal instead.

She expresses concern over the balance between energy security and climate change. Argues that while the UK should prioritise energy security, granting new oil and gas licences could harm international perceptions of the UK's commitment to tackling climate change. Highlights personal experiences with severe weather impacts in Essex and a visit to Ethiopia where she witnessed the devastating effects of consecutive years of drought. She also cites international examples such as China’s investment in renewables and India’s plans for massive renewable capacity, emphasising global efforts towards reducing fossil fuel dependence. Emphasises the importance of leadership and consistency in UK's environmental policies to encourage other countries to follow suit. Proposes measures like removing barriers to innovations such as hydrogen and accelerating new nuclear projects. Supports continuing the push for more local energy networks and rapid grid connection of renewable energy. She stresses on maintaining high environmental standards in offshore oil and gas industry, suggesting improvements that could make production processes cleaner.

She argues that new licences are incompatible with net zero commitments, provide minimal benefits to UK energy security, and damage marine wildlife. She advocates for a focus on renewable energy and home retrofitting instead.

Intervenes to highlight that new drilling licences conflict with international agreements on nature conservation, causing damage in marine protected areas.

Supports reducing reliance on fossil fuels and increasing domestic energy supply through the North Sea. Argues for pragmatic solutions and points out that high taxes may discourage investment in oil and gas extraction despite its necessity.

[INTERVENTION] Suggests that tax receipts from North Sea oil and gas can subsidise green energy production in other parts of the economy.

[INTERVENTION] Points out that even before a 35% energy profits levy, the oil and gas sector was taxed at 40%, making it the most heavily taxed industry in the country.

Matt Western argues against the Bill, stating that it contradicts efforts towards climate resilience. He highlights the Conservative Government’s decision to abandon zero carbon homes policy and criticises the lack of impact on energy bills despite increased oil and gas production. He also points out increasing insurance premiums due to climate change impacts. Furthermore, he emphasises the urgent need for a wider debate on climate change consequences including floods and tidal surges, stressing that young people are demanding immediate action. He concludes by asserting that better insulation and renewable sources would be cheaper energy solutions.

Welcomes the Bill as a necessary revision to previous policies aimed at net zero. Argues that it acknowledges job losses and security concerns due to reliance on foreign energy sources. Cites statistics showing increased import costs and decreased domestic production, highlighting dependency on countries with poor environmental standards. Emphasises the importance of jobs in the sector (200,000 across UK) and questions the feasibility of a just transition to renewables. Raises doubts about global leadership in net zero goals given the UK's small contribution to global emissions. Expresses reservations about judicial review blocking future oil production and lack of domestic refining capacity.

Whittome highlights that new oil and gas licensing would not lower household bills, as claimed by the Government. She cites evidence from the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero who admitted this claim is inaccurate. Whittome also points out that corporations already profiting significantly do not need further state support. Instead, she advocates for a green new deal to protect living standards while transitioning to renewable energy sources.

Caroline Lucas opposes the Bill, arguing that it exploits more oil and gas despite their high costs and environmental impact. She cites a paltry 16 days’ worth of gas produced from hundreds of licences issued in recent years, suggesting any new licenses will not provide significant energy security. Additionally, she criticises the Government for undermining climate action by promoting fossil fuel extraction while claiming to lead on climate change internationally.

Intervened to point out Gazprom International UK's operations in the North Sea, paying a €1.7 million dividend to Moscow, highlighting hypocrisy in promoting national security while allowing Russian energy extraction.

Shannon supports the Bill, emphasising the need for securing safe and reliable energy while also moving towards renewable sources. He highlights the financial strain on constituents due to rising energy costs and advocates for practical steps in achieving net zero targets without compromising the immediate needs of households and businesses. Shannon mentions the importance of supporting tidal energy projects and ensuring that farmers can contribute to net zero targets feasibly, noting the lack of electric vehicle points in rural areas as a barrier to EV adoption. He also raises concerns about the economic impact on small businesses due to increased energy prices.

Mr. Whitehead argued that the Bill is based on myths and lies, questioning its necessity as it requires the Oil and Gas Authority to do what it is already doing. He highlighted that the climate test in the bill is skewed, making it almost impossible to fail. The Bill is said to damage the UK's international standing due to a disconnect between domestic policies and international commitments.

Mr. Stuart defended the Bill, emphasising that it aligns with the UK's climate leadership role under the Conservative government. He pointed out the significant reduction in emissions since 2010, highlighting failures in previous Labour policies. He argued against opposition claims by asserting that ending new licensing would result in increased reliance on higher-emission LNG rather than pipeline gas from Norway.

Barry Sheerman raised a point of order, questioning the even-handedness of the Minister in giving way during winding-up speeches. He pointed out that the Minister has given way to a Conservative Member but refused interventions from the Opposition.

Responded to Barry Sheerman's point of order, stating that it is up to the Minister to decide who to give way to during winding-up speeches. Emphasised the importance of Members returning in good time for wind-ups and clarified that it is customary but not obligatory for Ministers to take interventions from those present throughout the debate.