Offshore Petroleum Licensing Bill — Clause 1 — Duty to invite applications for offshore licences — 20 Feb 2024 at 17:06
“This bill would in effect allow more frequent new oil and gas licences and the increased production of new fossil fuels in the North Sea… I can also no longer condone nor continue to support a government that is committed to a course of action that I know is wrong and will cause future harm.”
“not going to not make any difference”
“if North Sea production is to cease prematurely-a certain outcome of this”
“policy-then our entire energy transition is undermined.”
“if North Sea production is to cease”.
“a certain outcome of this policy”.
“reinforce the unfortunate perception of the UK’s rowing back from climate action”.-[Official Report, 22 January 2024; Vol. 744, c. 52.]
“would deliver a hammer blow to the energy we need today and to the homegrown transition”.
“These are not faceless numbers but decent, hardworking people working across the UK to provide the energy we will need today and in the future.”
“The uncertainty created by threatening new windfall taxes is as bad as the tax itself.”
“met UK Government Ministers more than 210 times in the year following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine-that is nearly once every working day.”-[Official Report, 30 January 2024; Vol. 744, c. 833.]
“if the UK allows any new development of oil and gas fields, it will severely undermine…claims of leadership by contributing to further oversupply of fossil fuels, and making it more difficult for the world to limit warming to 1.5°C. Therefore, the UK should commit to preventing any new oil and gas field development, and the Government should state this commitment clearly… There are those who might claim that stopping new developments of oil and gas fields would raise concerns about the affordability and security of future energy supplies, but there is now overwhelming evidence that the UK is far better served by a rapid transition to domestic clean energy sources, particularly renewables, and decarbonisation of our economy. Doubling down on fossil fuels will not lower energy bills or enhance our energy security… The IPCC report stated: ‘The choices and actions implemented in this decade’”-
“will have impacts now and for thousands of years’.”
“A fixation on new licensing…is a distraction. It offers comfort in the possibility of conserving oil and gas production…rather than grasping the challenge of a rapid transition.”
Public Whip is run as a free not-for-profit service. If you'd like to support us, please
consider switching your (UK) electricity and/or gas to Octopus Energy or tip us via Ko-Fi.
Party Summary
Votes by party, red entries are votes against the majority for that party.
What is Tell? '+1 tell' means that in addition one member of that party was a teller for that division lobby.
What are Boths? An MP can vote both aye and no in the same division. The boths page explains this.
What is Turnout? This is measured against the total membership of the party at the time of the vote.
| Party | Majority (Aye) | Minority (No) | Both | Turnout |
| Alliance | 0 | 1 | 0 | 100.0% |
| Con | 276 (+2 tell) | 0 | 0 | 79.2% |
| DUP | 8 | 0 | 0 | 100.0% |
| Green | 0 | 1 | 0 | 100.0% |
| Independent | 0 | 6 | 0 | 42.9% |
| Lab | 0 | 155 (+2 tell) | 0 | 78.5% |
| LDem | 0 | 11 | 0 | 73.3% |
| PC | 0 | 3 | 0 | 100.0% |
| Reclaim | 1 | 0 | 0 | 100.0% |
| SDLP | 0 | 2 | 0 | 100.0% |
| SNP | 0 | 39 | 0 | 90.7% |
| Total: | 285 | 218 | 0 | 79.3% |
Rebel Voters - sorted by party
MPs for which their vote in this division differed from the majority vote of their party. You can see all votes in this division, or every eligible MP who could have voted in this division
Sort by: Name | Constituency | Party | Vote
| Name | Constituency | Party | Vote | |
| no rebellions | ||||