Decision to drop Rosebank review fight could ‘jeopardise’ jobs, says Lamont
The shadow Scotland secretary said oil and gas is a ‘crucial’ industry.
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Whitehall’s decision not to fight a legal challenge against drilling for untapped oil could “jeopardise” energy and jobs in Scotland, a Commons frontbencher has warned.
John Lamont, Conservative shadow Scotland secretary, described oil and gas as a “crucial industry” north of the border, before Scotland Secretary Ian Murray said he should “stop scaremongering”.
The UK Government said in late August it would not challenge judicial reviews which environmental groups brought against the Rosebank and Jackdaw offshore oil and gas field developments.
If the review backs the cases put forward by Greenpeace and Uplift, it means the oil fields’ operators would need to resubmit new environmental assessments for their projects, adding to their costs.
At the despatch box, Mr Lamont said on Wednesday: “The Rosebank oil field is going to provide more than £6 billion of investment in UK-based businesses.
“The Jackdaw oil field will cater for the energy needs of 1.4 million UK households.
“But this Labour Government are jeopardising all that investment, energy and the jobs by dropping the UK Government’s opposition to the judicial review, which aims to block these vital energy projects.
“Can the Secretary of State seriously tell the 90,000 people whose jobs rely on oil and gas in Scotland the future of this crucial industry is secure under Labour when it is his Government’s policy to oppose all new developments?”
Labour Cabinet minister Ian Murray replied: “He should stop scaremongering with the 90,000 workforce in the North Sea. Oil and gas will be with us for decades to come.”
Announcing the decision not to challenge the judicial reviews, energy minister Michael Shanks said last month: “This Government is committed to making Britain a clean energy superpower, helping to meet our first mission to kickstart economic growth. While we make that transition the oil and gas industry will play an important role in the economy for decades to come.
“As we support the North Sea’s clean energy future, this Government is committed to protecting current and future generations of good jobs as we do so.”
Labour MP Gordon McKee (Glasgow South) asked the Scotland Secretary on Wednesday about his party’s flagship Great British Energy programme, and how it could support jobs in Glasgow.
GB Energy will “own, manage and operate clean power projects”, headquartered in Scotland, according to a founding statement by Energy Security and Net Zero Secretary Ed Miliband.
“The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero is due to make an announcement concerning the location of GB Energy very soon,” Mr Murray told MPs.
“I regret in the interim I can say no more than that but I’m sure my honourable friend’s words of encouragement in respect of Glasgow will not have escaped the attention of my Cabinet colleagues.”
The SNP’s Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) asked about devolved and UK-wide taxes.
Addressing Mr Murray, he told the Commons: “He’ll know that the Scottish Government has its own tax-raising powers – he’ll remember criticising the Scottish Government for not using them then criticising the Scottish Government when we did use them.
“But nevertheless, it generates £1.5 billion extra revenue in Scotland by taxing those who earn more slightly more and allows us to tax those who are earning slightly less even less than they do in the rest of the United Kingdom.
“What advice would he give the Chancellor to mirror those efforts in Scotland to have a more progressive and fair tax system for our workers?”
Scotland Office minister Kirsty McNeill, on behalf of the Westminster Government, replied: “The member will be aware that the IFS (Institute for Fiscal Studies) has said this morning that the tax policies of the Scottish Government have actually cost Scotland money rather than raised it.
“And he’ll know too that this Government has had to undertake a comprehensive audit of spending to make sure that we can clear up the mess that we’ve inherited – the £22 billion black hole is real, the Treasury reserves have been spent more than three times over – and he’ll be aware that our focus for the Chancellor is in making sure we fix the foundations and get the economy back on track.”
The IFS described the Scottish Government as being “not blameless” for in-year spending cuts of up to £500 million in Holyrood, which Scotland’s Finance Secretary Shona Robison announced on Tuesday.
“The Scottish Government could have held back funding to help meet additional pay and other cost pressures, rather than be forced to make in-year cuts to other spending,” IFS head of devolved and local government finance wrote.
“A decision to freeze council tax also cost almost double the amount raised from increases in income tax rates on higher earners. Tax policy decisions therefore reduced rather than raised revenues, increasing the pressure on Scotland’s public finances.”
Announcing the cut to “ensure we can balance the Scottish budget in 2024-25”, Ms Robison said: “Were Scotland an independent country, we would not be paying the price for bad decisions taken at Westminster – whether that be years of austerity cuts, Brexit, or reckless mini-budgets – all of which have taken money out of the economy and funding for public services.”