PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Oil and Gas - 24 March 2026 (Commons/Commons Chamber)

I inform the House that the Speaker has selected the amendment tabled in the name of the Prime Minister.

I call the shadow Secretary of State for Energy and Net Zero.

I beg to move,

That this House calls on the Government to remove the Energy Profits Levy, end the ban on new oil and gas licences and approve the Rosebank and Jackdaw fields to increase secure domestic energy supply; recognises that the North Sea provides half of the UK’s gas supply, supports 200,000 skilled jobs across the UK and generates billions of pounds in tax revenue; further recognises that three quarters of the UK’s energy needs are met by oil and gas, that the UK will continue to use oil and gas for decades, and that the North Sea is the UK’s most secure and lowest-carbon source of oil and gas; notes that without action to make the sector more investable, the UK risks importing 82% of its gas by 2035 at higher cost and with higher emissions; and further notes that independent analysis by Stifel shows that the Energy Profits Levy will cost the Treasury more than it raises and that reforming it would generate an additional £25 billion in tax revenues within 10 years.

What do RenewableUK, Scottish Renewables, Greg Jackson from Octopus, the chair of Great British Energy, the unions and the Tony Blair Institute all have in common? They all think that the Labour party has got this wrong; they all think that we should make the most of our oil and gas in the North sea. They are some of the most powerful advocates for clean energy in this country, they are the great and the good of the Labour left, and they all get that shutting down the North sea is an act of economic self-harm—an unforgivable own goal when it comes to Britain’s energy security. The question is: why does the Labour party not get that? Let us go through the arguments, one by one.

First, the Secretary of State has argued that the North sea does not help our energy security because all the oil and gas gets sold abroad. That is rubbish. We use all the gas that we drill in the North sea. It makes up about half our supply. If we do not use our own North sea gas, by 2035, we will be three times more reliant on foreign imports of liquefied natural gas. That is much dirtier foreign gas. Why would we use that when we could use our own? The argument that it does not affect our energy security is pure misinformation from the Secretary of State, and MPs in the House today would be unwise to repeat it. Even the Climate Change Committee acknowledges that we will still need oil and gas for decades to come. If we are going to need them, we should get as much as possible from Britain. That is just common sense.

Secondly, Labour says that maximising our own resources in the North sea makes us more reliant on fossil fuels. That is total rubbish. Producing our own oil and gas has no connection with our consumption of oil and gas. The biggest barrier to electrification is not our oil and gas industry; it is the Labour party, making electricity more and more expensive by piling levies and taxes on to people’s bills. Using electricity to heat our homes or drive our cars can help make us resilient during a price spike, but the problem is that our electricity is too expensive. The Secretary of State, by piling cost after cost on to people’s electricity bills, is making the problem worse.

Does the right hon. Lady agree that the simple thing to do to bring down bills is to scrap net stupid zero, so that we can scrap all the carbon taxes and all the green levies, and all our consumers and households would be better off?

We do need to take some of the green taxes and levies off electricity bills. The problem is that if the Government keep making electricity more expensive, no one will want to use it. That is why our policy is the opposite of theirs. We believe that we should make electricity cheap by taking off green taxes and levies, and that has nothing to do with the North sea. Drilling in the North sea does not stop anyone buying an electric car. It does not stop us building nuclear, of which I am a strong advocate, and nor does it stop us building wind or solar for that matter. The Government say that drilling in the North sea leaves us tied to fossil fuels, but why? They need only look to Norway to see that that is not true. It makes the most of its own oil and gas resources, but lots of people drive electric vehicles there. Let us hear none of that argument today.

Thirdly, the Government say that drilling will not help reduce costs for ordinary people. That is economically illiterate rubbish. We are paying tens of billions of pounds to import oil and gas from Norway from the exact same basin we could be drilling ourselves. Destroying our oil and gas industry means some £25 billion in lost tax revenue for the public finances over the next decade. The Government say they are taxing the wealthy. Are they in the real world? They are taxing anybody with a pulse: pensioners, middle earners, small businesses, farmers, drivers—if they breathe, the Government are taxing them, and people are suffering. The Government could instead be getting that tax revenue from a thriving industry.

Is it not true that the number of jobs in the North sea oil industry halved in the last decade when the shadow Secretary of State’s party was in government?

The hon. Lady might like to know that oil and gas jobs have been stable for the past six years, but we are losing 1,000 jobs a month because of the Government’s policies. I know that because I have been to Aberdeen; perhaps she would like to do the same.

We also saw yesterday that the markets are charging us 5% for our borrowing. That is because they think we borrow too much and earn too little. There is an easy way for the country to earn some more money: we can make the most of our own resources and back the North sea, which would drive down costs for everyone. It is unfashionable at the moment to talk about balance of payments, but if we keep sending billions of pounds abroad and rack up the credit card bill, that causes costs for everybody.

Fourthly, on climate, Labour will say that drilling our own oil and gas in the North sea is “climate vandalism”—I am quoting the Secretary of State—but that is patent rubbish. Every drop of gas that we do not drill ourselves, we import from abroad instead. The liquified natural gas that we import has four times the emissions of gas that we could get from the North sea. LNG, for those who do not know, has to be frozen to minus 150ºC, shipped in diesel-chugging tankers, then heated up here. That is why it has much higher emissions overall. The Labour party says that it cares about that and that climate change is the biggest threat to our national security—its words, not mine—but it has a choice today: we can be three times more reliant on that dirtier LNG shipped across the Atlantic or shipped in from the middle east, or we could use our own gas with four times fewer emissions. Do the Government prefer virtue signalling and higher emissions under the Secretary of State, or more jobs and lower emissions under our plans to back the North sea?

Does my right hon. Friend, like me, feel sorry not only for all the consumers up and down the country who see billions of taxes that could be paid if we just produced more oil and gas here—that could be used to lower their taxes when they fill up their cars and travel to work—but for the two Ministers on the Front Bench, the hon. Members for Inverclyde and Renfrewshire West (Martin McCluskey) and for Rutherglen (Michael Shanks)? Neither of them is an idiot, but they have been captured by an ideological Secretary of State who is literally making them swear that black is white.

The two Ministers are Scottish MPs. They have been to industry, and they know what people in those areas are saying. They know the jobs that are being lost. It is so blindingly obvious that we should use things that we make in this country, rather than using dirtier imports from abroad. The question they need to ask themselves is, why is it that their Secretary of State cannot see the truth?

Fifthly, the Government say that new fields will take too long to get up and running. That is dangerous, short-termist rubbish. Jackdaw and Rosebank could be up and running by Christmas. They have been sat on the Secretary of State’s desk gathering dust. The Government are hiding behind the process. I was part of the process, and it is in the Secretary of State’s gift—it is up to him to make the assessment. We are in an energy crisis, and he could speed things up if he chose to do so. Jackdaw alone could produce enough gas to heat more than 1.5 million homes. Labour’s Chancellor commended Norway and Canada for drilling more—[Interruption.] That is what she said last week. She said that

“every country has got to play their part”

by generating more oil and gas. Government Members should ask themselves why their party position seems to be to support the oil and gas industry anywhere but Britain.

Does the right hon. Lady agree with her shadow Energy Minister, the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie), when he said:

“Look, nobody’s saying that net zero was a mistake. Net zero in the round was the eminently sensible thing to do. We need to decarbonise and we need to have an ambitious target to aim for”?

I would thank the hon. Lady, but I do not think it takes much effort to read out a Whip’s question. The question she needs to answer is why she is supporting a policy that will increase British emissions. She is supporting a policy that means we are importing goods with higher emissions.

I have laid out five bad arguments that have been thoroughly disproved by people outside this Chamber whom the Government supposedly respect. Those five bad arguments spun by the Secretary of State should be consigned to history. What the North sea can give us is what it has been doing all along: stronger energy security, a stronger environment and a stronger economy. Are those not things that we want the next generation to have? The question that the Government need to answer is this: what reason do RenewableUK or their very own chair of Great British Energy have to back the North sea if it does not give us those very things? Maybe—just maybe—it is time for the Government to admit that their Secretary of State has approached his role with a dangerous, blinkered ideology, rather than being interested in the national interest. Perhaps even they realise that they are once more being marched up the hill on the wrong side of history and on the wrong side of public opinion, when we all know that there will be an inevitable U-turn from the Prime Minister and the Chancellor in a few weeks’ time.

It is mad at the best of times not to want to make the most of our own resources. The idea that one should ban industry if it does not change prices in this country is, let us be clear, an argument to shut down all business in this country. There are benefits to making things in Britain: jobs, tax revenue and self-reliance. The Labour party used to understand that.

On that point about security and growing energy at home, I am sure that my right hon. Friend shares my concern that in the push for renewables, we are entirely reliant on the processing being done in China on the other side of the world. The Government talk about not being reliant on petrochemical dictators, but they seem perfectly happy to be reliant on renewable dictators.

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. In the trade wars that we saw last year, China limited the export of several rare earth minerals that are critical components in the renewable supply chain. An energy system that is dominated by renewables is one that is completely reliant on China, and that is why we think it is the wrong approach. It is mad at the best of times not to want to make the most of our own resources, but in the middle of a supply crisis, it is completely unforgivable. Yet that is exactly what Labour MPs will vote for today. They are on the wrong side of history on this one. They should put their disastrous Secretary of State’s zealotry to one side, fast-track Rosebank and Jackdaw, reverse their disastrous bans and taxes, and put our energy resilience over their narrow political interests by backing the North sea.

I thank the shadow Minister and the Conservative party for bringing this subject forward. My constituents tell me very clearly, “If we have oil, let’s dig it, let’s drill it and let’s make sure that we get the opportunity from it.” Is it not ludicrous for the Labour party to let Norway get all the assets from the drilling and let us get nothing, when it is coming from the same bed? For the Labour party to have that policy is ludicrous. It goes against the will of the people and against the will of us those of us on the Opposition Benches of this Parliament. I think the Minister should take a review of this decision.

I think those are the strongest words I have heard from the hon. Member in my entire time in Parliament, and the Government would be wise to heed them. At the moment, we share the same basin with Norway. Last year, Norway drilled 46 new wells and made 21 new discoveries, while we drilled zero wells for the first time since 1964. This is exactly the same basin. There is not a geological difference; it is a political line drawn down the middle. It is quite clear that it is the approach of Labour and the Secretary of State that is driving the industry into the ground.

One reason that Norway is so successful is the certainty that is applied to its tax regime in respect of oil and gas drilling. The Conservatives’ motion, as I read it, seeks to remove the energy profits levy. As a point of clarity, can the right hon. Lady be clear with the House as to whether she would want that to be replaced by the oil and gas price mechanism, as suggested by so many in the industry in Aberdeen?

I know that the right hon. Gentleman’s party has a chequered past in backing the North sea, but I would be happy to work with anyone to look at how we can support the industry.

My position is clear. At the moment, we are taxing companies at a marginal rate of 100%, we are banning new licences—the only country in the world to do so—and we are making ourselves more reliant on dirtier gas from abroad, when we could be using our own resources and taking in £25 billion of tax receipts. That is why I urge the Labour party—the party that used to be the party of workers, the party of industry and the party that understood aspiration in this country—to put itself on the right side of history and vote for the motion today.

I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “House” to the end of the Question and add:

“welcomes the Government’s approach to the future of the North Sea, which maintains existing oil and gas fields for their lifetime, as well as introducing Transitional Energy Certificates while accelerating the transition to clean energy; notes that new licences to explore new fields would take many years to come online and would make no difference to energy bills; recognises that oil and gas prices are set on international markets; and further welcomes the measures announced by the Government to go further and faster on national energy security by reducing reliance on volatile fossil fuel markets and expanding secure, home grown clean energy.”

As I have said many times in this House, the North sea oil and gas sector is one of our great industrial success stories. We are proud of the role that the North sea’s workers and communities have played in helping to power our country and the world for decades, and we recognise the role that oil and gas will play in our energy mix for decades to come, as well as the vast skills and experience of our offshore workforce. However, as a Government we also have a duty to be honest about the challenges we face, and the reality is that more domestic oil and gas production will not make us more energy secure and will not take a penny off bills. There is a lot of debate when it comes to this issue, so it is important to focus on the facts.

And on that point—about facts—I will give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Earlier today, the Secretary of State refused to answer my question about why the price of gas in the United States is between a third and a quarter of the price of gas here in the UK. Perhaps the Minister could help us all and help the British people with that question, which goes to the heart of the price of gas and the size and cost of our bills.

As the hon. Member will know, the price of gas and oil is set on an international market and, as I have said, extracting more from the North sea would not make a penny’s difference to the price in this country.

The North sea is a super-mature basin that accounts for around 0.7% of global oil and gas production. Production has been naturally falling for more than 20 years, which means that our North sea no longer has the reserves available to support domestic energy demand. Crucially, any new licences now would not make any difference to people’s energy bills because, regardless of where it comes from, oil and gas is sold on international markets, where we are price takers, not price makers.

If we were to accept the argument that it would make no difference to the international price—notwithstanding the fact that there are global markets and that supply and demand leads to much lower prices in some places than in others—we are still talking about billions of pounds in forgone taxes, which could be used to reduce prices, to reduce VAT and to reduce all sorts of impositions on the British people, saving not pennies but many pounds on ordinary people’s bills. That is true, isn’t it, Minister?

The Conservatives want us to remove a tax that is contributing £12 billion to the Exchequer, funding our public services and allowing us to invest in our schools, hospitals and other public services. If they oppose that funding, they need to come forward with their own proposals. The only route to energy security and lower bills is to get off our dependence on fossil fuel markets over which we have no control, and on to clean home-grown power over which we do.

There seems to be a complete failure to understand how the gas market works. It works on piped gas, on local markets and on an integrated supply and consumption system, yet the Minister is addressing it as though it involves shipped oil. It is not the same market, yet he is dealing with it as though it is. Could he please begin to address the fact that this is a very different market?

We have been importers of gas since 2004, and the Conservatives will know—because they presided over the period of decline—that it has been declining for some time.

Recent events in the middle east are yet another reminder of the need to speed up the transition and protect British people from price shocks. Thanks to our mission to make the UK a clean energy superpower, we have already seen £90 billion of investment announced for clean British energy, but we are now determined to go even further and faster in pursuit of national energy security.

I accept the Minister’s point about having more home-grown energy, and renewables can be good for insulating ourselves from economic shocks, but he will know that great swathes of our industrial base are gas dependent, not least the ceramics industry. What message does he send to them? The current price per therm is twice what it was three weeks ago. Those business are renewing their contracts. This is going to kill industry in certain parts of our foundational sector that we need to meet our mission, so what is the Government’s message to those industries?

My hon. Friend is a real advocate for the industries in his constituency. The Minister for Industry is looking in detail at this and coming forward with proposals for industry to take us through this moment, as we deal with the situation in the middle east.

We are bringing forward the next renewables auction months after our most successful auction ever secured enough power for the equivalent of 16 million homes. Just today, we set out plans to make plug-in solar available in supermarkets so that more people can put a panel on their balcony or outdoor space and begin saving energy. We are also ensuring that heat pumps and solar panels will be standard in new-build homes.

The energy profits levy has been mentioned by a number of hon. Members across the House. Since its introduction in 2022, the levy has raised around £12 billion. As I said earlier, this revenue supports vital public services. As the Chancellor noted at the recent spring forecast, the energy profits levy will be replaced by the new oil and gas price mechanism in 2030, or sooner if average oil and gas prices over six months fall below the thresholds of the energy security investment mechanism. The Chancellor recognises industry’s calls for the EPL to be replaced by the mechanism, and wants to work with industry to provide certainty on the future fiscal regime while taxing the windfall profits of energy companies.

On the energy profits levy, the Office for Budget Responsibility’s forecast last year downgraded the expected income from oil and gas by 40% between March and November, and by another 20% between November and March this year. By 2030, we are now expecting only £100 million from a sector that used to bring home billions. That is because of the EPL and the ban on licences. That is the impact that Labour is having on the oil and gas sector.

The hon. Lady will know that this is a windfall tax on windfall profits. If there are no windfall profits, there will not be a windfall tax.

The motion calls for an end to the ban on oil and gas licensing. The Government have been clear that we will support the management of existing fields for their lifespan. That is why we have committed to introducing transitional energy certificates, which will enable some offshore oil and gas production in areas adjacent to already licensed fields linked via a tieback or in areas that are already part of an existing field. New licences to explore new fields would make no material difference to overall production and would run contrary to the science on tackling the climate crisis.

Why does the Minister think the strategy of this Government is so different from that of Norway? Nobody doubts the commitment that Norway has to the environment and net zero, and yet it is pumping more oil and gas than it has done for a very long time, notwithstanding its longer-term commitment to net zero.

Norway has managed its fields in a very different way from the way this country has over the course of 40 or 50 years. Every country will take its own decisions on how best to secure its own energy supply, and many other countries are taking a similar approach to the United Kingdom.

Let me turn to Jackdaw and Rosebank, which are addressed in the Opposition motion. At the outset, I should say that it would be inappropriate for me to comment on the merits of individual cases because doing so could prejudice the decision-making process. As with planning decisions, which are comparable in nature, offshore oil and gas projects are subject to a robust and legally-grounded regulatory framework under which information submitted by developers must be carefully assessed. In both the Jackdaw and Rosebank cases, the Secretary of State will make a decision on whether to agree to these being consented in due course. It is imperative that all relevant material is properly considered so that decisions are sound, defensible and robust. When reaching a view, the Secretary of State will assess the overall balance between any potential significant environmental effects and the wider benefits to the interests of the country. As Members would expect, that assessment will involve considering a range of factors, which may include energy security, alongside environmental considerations.

Some have asked why the decisions are taking time. The answer is straightforward: these are planning-type decisions that must be taken in full knowledge of the facts. The guidance on the assessment of scope 3 emissions, published last year in response to the Supreme Court’s judgment, is the first of its kind, and it is therefore crucial that we take the time to apply it properly. [Interruption.] It serves no one’s interest for decisions to be rushed—it certainly does not serve the industry or the constituents of the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart), who is chuntering from a sedentary position—only for it to be overturned later by the courts, which was the mess that the previous Government got into.

The Minister mentioned energy security. Of course, that is fundamentally the most important issue facing us as a country at the moment, not only because of the conflict in the middle east, but wider conflicts, including that in Ukraine. Is it not the case that we must stop taking short-term decisions and instead look to the long-term future of our energy so that we can get nationally controlled energy security, which is good for our national security, too?

My hon. Friend makes an important point that gets to the heart of this debate. We are not going to learn the wrong lessons from the current situation in the middle east. We will not make ourselves more reliant on fossil fuels, at a time when we can see playing out day after day in all our constituencies the effect—rising prices—of being overly reliant and exposed to gas and fossil fuels.

We are incredibly fortunate to have the North sea on our doorstep. For almost half a century, the oil and gas buried there has fuelled development and charged our economy. But for too long, Governments have ignored the transition happening before their eyes. We owe it to the North sea’s workers and communities, which have done so much for our country, to set out a proper plan for their future and to seize the immense potential in clean energy.

The workers who the Minister is referring to have a very different take from his own on his Government’s approach to the North sea. Indeed, I think they would be incredulous at the arguments he is making today and that his Government have made over many months, because it is costing them their jobs. He knows that moving from the energy profits levy to the oil and gas price mechanism as quickly as possible will give those workers some hope and will help assist with energy security. Is he or his Department currently in discussions with the Treasury about making that happen?

The Chancellor has had discussions with industry and will continue to do so, and that is the right and appropriate way to conduct these decisions. I was pleased to be in Aberdeen a couple of weeks ago talking to the same workers that the right hon. Member mentions. Of course, we need to do as much as possible to ensure that oil and gas workers are properly protected through this transition, but we must not lose sight of the great potential, for example, in floating offshore wind, which will also provide a significant future for his constituents and people across Scotland.

As I was saying, the transition that is under way is the only way to get off the rollercoaster of fossil fuels and build a more secure energy system. Following a consultation with businesses and communities last autumn, we set out the steps we are taking to unleash the North sea’s clean energy future. That plan recognises our world-class energy workers and supply chains and the importance of supporting them through that transition.

The Minister has been most generous in giving way. He will know that Harbour Energy was the single largest producer in the North sea—it is leaving. He will know that it has been devastating for so many workers in the industry. He will also know that, by all projections, in 2050 this country will still be dependent on oil and gas in all scenarios. Yet, by not doing new licences, we will by definition be more dependent on foreign supply, much of it having to come through the strait of Hormuz. How can that make any sense? I do not think the Minister thinks it does, but I suppose he is forced to stand on his feet and repeat the nonsense that comes out of the mouth of his Secretary of State.

I am more than capable of forming my own conclusions, and what is in this speech are my own conclusions. I encourage the right hon. Gentleman to listen to what I have had to say throughout this speech. Harbour Energy is continuing to operate. He talks about dependence. The dependence that we see at the moment is dependence on fossil fuels and on oil and gas, which has left every single one of our constituents across this House exposed to volatile oil and gas prices and to higher prices. As I said in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Peter Swallow), the only way out of that is to get off this rollercoaster of fossil fuels and on to home-grown energy where we can control the price. That is a responsible action from a Government who are focused on the long term and not the short term.

Offshore Energies UK does not agree. It said that at the current rate of the Government crashing the North sea industry, we will be three times more reliant on gas by 2035 than we are at the moment. Is the Minister right or is Offshore Energies UK right?

I will say to the right hon. Gentleman what I said to his Front Benchers last week: the Conservatives need to stop talking down the North sea. With 1.1 million barrels a day being extracted, that is not an industry being shut down; that is an industry continuing to produce.

Just last week, the Minister for Energy met our North Sea future board in Aberdeen with representatives from industry, unions and local groups to discuss how we can drive a fair, orderly and prosperous transition. Net zero is the economic opportunity of the century—

Madness!

That is despite what the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice) might say. This Government will ensure that our oil and gas workers can take advantage of that opportunity while driving for energy sovereignty and abundance with clean home-grown power.

Order. I alert Members to the fact that there will be a four-minute time limit on speeches, which of course does not apply to the Front Benchers.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

We need to be clear that this energy crisis is, in effect, an oil and gas crisis and shows us yet again just how dangerous our overdependence on fossil fuels is. Just as with Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the middle east conflict shows how a single geopolitical escalation can send energy prices soaring, leaving households and businesses here in the UK exposed to shocks beyond their control. History is now in danger of repeating itself: families struggling with higher gas, petrol and food prices while energy companies’ profits surge. Forecasts from Cornwall Insight suggest that, if the conflict continues, energy bills could rise by £332 this July—a £332 Trump war tax on our energy bills.

Yet what do we see in the Conservative response? More drilling, more dependence, more of the rollercoaster of volatile fossil fuel prices. Alongside Reform UK, the Conservatives who are here today to mislead the public on the need to “Drill, baby, drill” are the same ones who were gung-ho in urging the Prime Minister to join Trump in the illegal war that caused this very crisis.

Can the hon. Lady explain why the production of oil and gas makes us more reliant on the consumption of oil and gas? Will she consider the example of Norway, which, despite exporting oil and gas, and getting tax revenue from it, has high electric vehicle penetration? Why does she conflate these issues?

I believe that the Minister answered that question. Norway has a very different system, and it made different decisions about consumption, based on the faster and greater adoption of techniques and heat pumps. The dither and delay under the previous Conservative Government meant that we did not move forward and reduce consumption.

The truth is that expanding oil and gas production in the North sea—a mature basin from which we have already extracted 93% of resource—would do nothing to cut people’s energy bills, because any oil and gas extracted is sold on international markets to the highest bidder. Nor would it influence global prices, given that the UK can contribute only a tiny fraction of the global supply, even if new licences were granted. It would neither cut bills nor increase the security of supply.

Research by Uplift shows that fields licensed by the previous Conservative Government over 14 years have produced just over a month’s worth of gas to date. Energy security is national security; as long as we rely on fossil fuels, we rely on foreign dictators and petrostates. Trump’s national security report was clear: he will use his gas to project power, turning it on and off at will. The Conservatives and Reform have shown that when Trump says “jump”, they ask, “How high?” That is not energy security; it is energy surrender.

Just to confirm, is the Liberal Democrats’ position that they do not want new licences in the North sea?

I can confirm that the Liberal Democrat position is not to support new fields for exploration in the North sea. Rather, we should accelerate our own home-grown clean energy, the price of which we control. Otherwise, our constituents will forever be at the mercy of a deteriorating world order.

Let me turn to jobs, which matter deeply. Those working in the North sea are skilled workers. They have kept our lights on, and must be at the heart of any transition. A just transition recognises that, although we will need oil and gas for decades to come, the North sea is a mature basin, and oil and gas workers, as well as supply chains, need support to transition. Even though the Conservatives supported new North sea drilling, the number of jobs in the oil and gas industry fell by 70,000 when they were in government, but without this level of outcry or support.

I grew up in Hull—a city that knew the devastation of unmanaged transition. I saw, through my father’s work as a GP, the human cost of industries collapsing without a plan. Dockers, trawlermen and entire communities were left behind and lost pride. We must not repeat those mistakes. Yet in Hull today, we also see what success can look like. With investment in offshore wind, companies such as Siemens are creating skilled, well-paid jobs for the future building wind turbine blades—that means jobs and pride.

Let me turn to climate change. Although fossil fuels are driving skyrocketing costs, they also drive the costs of the unabated climate change that is already hitting our farmers and our communities, through crippling flooding and droughts. Approving Rosebank alone would add nearly 250 million tonnes of emissions, pushing us beyond our climate targets and further out of line with the Paris agreement, which aims to protect us all. Opening new fields would worsen the climate crisis without cutting bills or improving energy security. It would exacerbate climate breakdown, which is a national security threat that drives instability, displacement and economic shocks.

The hon. Lady criticises us for trying to extract oil and gas, so does she also criticise Norway’s successful and excellent programme of drilling 49 new wells last year? We drilled none.

We have been taking out less gas for decades now, and those decisions were taken by successive Governments. We have seen the assessment on the security of gas supply: Norway’s geological situation shows that it has more left, while our basin has less and the supply is dwindling. Expanding North sea drilling is not pragmatic; it is reckless and incompatible with the UK’s climate commitments.

There is another path, however. The Liberal Democrats have been clear that we must break our overdependence on fossil fuels and decouple gas and electricity prices so that households benefit from cheap, clean power. The more we expand renewable clean energy through contracts for difference—provision introduced by the Liberal Democrats—the less gas sets the price, so families and businesses could have fixed renewable energy prices. We would go further in taking policy costs off energy bills, so that households feel in their pockets that the wind and the sun are cheaper than gas. We must also make homes cheaper to heat in the winter, and cool in the summer, with a more ambitious warm homes plan and a 10-year emergency home upgrade programme.

We should build on the Liberal Democrat success by getting the Government to commit today to putting rooftop solar on all new builds. Rejoining the EU’s internal energy market would reduce wholesale costs, make the trade of energy more efficient, and avoid higher costs. More drilling means more volatility, more insecurity and higher bills. The Liberal Democrats offer a different path: decoupled gas and electricity prices, and the lower bills that families and businesses deserve.

I have found this debate quite fascinating. What nonsense from the Conservatives! We are watching a party rip itself up as it worries about more defections to Reform, and Conservative Back Benchers parrot the lines of their Front Benchers. We know from media coverage that the Conservatives are promoting people to the Front Bench based on their social media clout, so I look forward to many more one-liners and AI-generated speeches as they all try to get to the front. We have heard arguments that sound less like a plan for Britain and much more like they are straight from the Reform playbook, talking down our country and creating more uncertainty and worry for families across the UK.

To be clear, I fiercely oppose further oil and gas exploration in the North sea. Expanding new drilling would not address the pressures that families face right now, and it would not give our country long-term energy security and sovereignty. In fact, it would exacerbate the problem. There is a claim that we can simply turn the drilling on, that billions of pounds are available right now without any Government subsidy, and that, all of a sudden, we will get more oil. That is a fairytale—it is nonsense. Drilling and expansion is expensive. The best supplies are already tapped out. Profiteering drillers and exploiters are honest about this. There are other places around the world where they would much prefer to drill, to make much bigger profits for their stakeholders. Drilling is not a magical solution that will benefit British families.

Even if North sea fields were opened today, as the motion proposes, the UK would still depend on imported gas by 2050, but it would make up 94% rather than 97% of the total. It would make almost zero impact on our long-term energy security. Let us consider the two projects mentioned in the motion. Jackdaw would reduce import dependence by roughly 2%, with the UK continuing to be heavily reliant on international supplies. Rosebank would reduce oil dependence by around 1%, and all that oil would be destined for exports, not for the pumps.

Is the hon. Member aware that there is about a decade’s worth of wonderful shale gas in the great county of Lincolnshire that can power this great nation?

The discussion on fracking is perhaps one for another day.

We have heard claims that there are billions of pounds to be invested, but in reality, when it comes to development, it is the public who pay the price. In some cases, taxpayers foot around 80% of the development bill. Modelling on Rosebank and ending the energy profits levy shows that there could be a net loss of about £250 million to the Treasury, while operators would receive about £1.5 billion in profits. That should give us pause for thought. Who are we here to represent—our neighbours who are facing high prices at the pumps and high fuel bills, or multimillionaire shareholders?

There is also the fundamental question of whether the Government will keep their promise to future generations on the climate crisis. International bodies, including the International Energy Agency, have set out that new exploration licences are not compatible with limiting warming to 1.5°C. Last year was the first time in history that global temperatures exceeded 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels.

We have a legal obligation, but, more importantly, we have a duty to act in the best interests of our country and our people in the long term. If we expand fossil fuel extraction in full knowledge of the consequences, we are choosing to delay that responsibility and we will feel the effects. We are already feeling the effects in food prices. The No. 1 issue that our farmers are facing is climate change. We will feel the impact of extreme heat and air quality on health, and we will see the effects in global instability, which feeds straight back into costs here at home.

The task ahead of us is to make sure that we stick with the plan, focus on doubling down on renewables, say no to oil and gas, and, ultimately, make sure that we deliver a clean future for our country.

I am almost a little shocked to have to follow that, but I will do my best. It explains exactly why I do not understand Labour’s oil and gas policy. The unions do not understand its policy. The Tony Blair Institute does not understand its policy. The industry does not understand its policy. The renewables industry does not understand its policy. That is not because we cannot understand something; it is because the policy is absolutely crazy.

We have just heard that we will be using oil and gas for decades. We have just heard that that oil and gas has to come from overseas, but much less of it will need to come from overseas if we open up drilling in the North sea, if we get rid of the EPL and if we make the North sea a basin that companies can and want to invest in and drill from.

Jackdaw and Rosebank are prime examples that could be producing by the end of the year. Jackdaw could be powering 1.6 million homes, but the Government do not want it to. They would prefer to import from abroad, because then they can say that we are a country progressing towards net zero. They can say that their renewables ambition is kicking ahead. It does not matter about the jobs they are kicking or the tax being lost in the meantime. It does not matter about the £50 billion of investment or the £165 billion of economic activity that will be lost. The Government and the Secretary of State will have their headline. He will go down as the Secretary of State who managed to shut down the North sea and who got us off oil and gas. But it is a fantasy. It is never going to happen—it cannot happen.

Seventy per cent of the UK’s energy—not electricity, but energy—comes from oil and gas, and it will for many, many years. No matter how much the Government wish that we were not reliant on oil and gas, we are, and no matter how much the hon. Member for Northampton South (Mike Reader) wishes that we did not need our own oil and gas, we do. We need our own oil and gas and we need oil and gas from abroad, and we will for a long time yet.

I care about the workers in the oil and gas sector, because those workers are my constituents. They are my friends and neighbours. They are the people who hold our communities together. However, this is not just about north-east Scotland. Every single Member of this House has constituents who work in the oil and gas sector and who will be listening to the debate today, worrying about their jobs and wondering why the Government are so determined to sacrifice their livelihoods in order to import more from abroad. When we meet workers in north-east Scotland, they do not talk about their jobs in the future; they talk about their jobs now. They worry about how their jobs are going to be protected and why the Government do not want to protect them. The apparent “Labour” Government—the Government who are meant to protect jobs—do not value oil and gas jobs.

This is a critical question. Who is more dangerous to the British economy—the Secretary of State for Energy or the Chancellor of the Exchequer?

I do not want to pick between the two, but as a double act they are dreadful for the UK economy.

From now and into the years ahead, the transition, which the Government are so dedicated to, will see the industry move away from Aberdeen, because the supply chain, which they know is so important to the transition, is sustained by the oil and gas sector. Production from the North sea decreased by 40% last year. That is not because of geology; it is because of the energy profits levy and the ban on licences.

Does the hon. Lady agree that UK production in the North sea can never put us in a position like Norway, because Margaret Thatcher gave away our oil industry to private companies and we have no sovereign fund?

We need to import more than we produce, so why would we not produce to the full extent that we can from the North sea? I am sure that the hon. Lady, as a Scottish Member of Parliament, appreciates just how important the industry is to our constituents. As for the Scottish Labour Members of Parliament, I wonder whether they are sitting there wondering just what the Government are doing to their constituents.

Will the hon. Lady give way?

I would love to hear the hon. Gentleman justify it.

As ever, the hon. Lady speaks with great passion on this issue. She started by talking about Jackdaw. She must recognise that her party made a complete mess of that, which is why it is completely shrouded in uncertainty just now. She blames the Government and suggests that Labour is to blame, but it was her party, was it not? Is it not a quasi-judicial decision rather than a decision for the Minister?

The Government removed their support for Jackdaw and Rosebank, and that is why they are now held up. If the Government wanted Jackdaw and Rosebank, or Cambo and Tornado down the line—there are many others in the pipeline as well—they could approve them. It is in their gift. Apparently, they wanted to be in power for a long time because they wanted to be able to make these decisions. The only decision they are making for north-east Scotland, no matter what they say to the contrary, is the decision to close down the North sea, and to see redundancies going up, investment going abroad and tax intake reducing.

The skilled workforce of north-east Scotland should be something that the whole of the UK treasures. It is a vital asset, as is the North sea. Any other country in the world would give anything to have the workers, skills and geology that we have off our east coast, but the Government are not interested. They would much prefer to hit their renewables targets and clean power targets than to support one of our most crucial industries. That is why I am delighted that the Opposition have secured this debate today. I am delighted that we will be voting to support our oil and gas sector, its workers and our industry. I really hope that Members across the House will support us.

I will start by thanking the North sea oil workers now and in the past. I recently read the book “Black Eden” by Richard T. Kelly—perhaps others have read it, too. On just about every single page, I was reminded of people I know, or people I knew in my childhood in Aberdeenshire—the incredible innovators, the divers who risked their lives every single time they entered the water, and the workers on the rigs spending weeks away from their families. They deserve our thanks and recognition. What they do not deserve is histrionics, slogans rather than a plan and to not be taken seriously. They have not been taken seriously by the Opposition motion today.

The Opposition motion misrepresents the industry that North sea oil workers are in. It fails to set out a path towards sustainable employment for them and for their kids and grandkids—and, by the way, they do care about their children’s employment in Aberdeen. It also ignores the need to get energy bills down, let alone to tackle the climate emergency. The claims made in the motion that these measures would somehow boost employment and reduce bills are farcical.

Since I went to Aberdeen recently to talk to workers and to grandparents and their children, I would like to ask the right hon. Lady, when was the last time she spoke to workers in Aberdeen?

Well, I can answer that very quickly, because many of them are in my family and among my friends. The shadow Secretary of State said before that she had visited Aberdeen. I found it extraordinary that when the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Pippa Heylings), mentioned the fact that jobs in oil and gas extraction fell by a third between 2014 and 2023, she would not even acknowledge it—she looked stunned. Well, I can tell her that for workers in that area, those job losses were painful. Every bust has been painful, and she should acknowledge that, rather than pretending it did not even happen. People who are working in that industry deserve a proper strategy for their future, not magical thinking and empty sloganeering.

Will the right hon. Lady give way?

I will make some progress, then I would be happy to take the right hon. Gentleman’s intervention.

The long-term trend very clearly is for the growth of low-carbon offshore industries. That has not been the case for North sea oil and gas. Research at Robert Gordon University—just to let the shadow Secretary of State know, that is based in Aberdeen, the city that she visited—has shown that nine in 10 of the UK workforce in oil and gas have medium to high skills transferability and are well positioned to work in the adjacent energy sector. Hydrogen, carbon capture, wind and other renewables are critical to sustaining high-skilled jobs in both engineering and manufacturing. We urgently need to boost those technologies with an active labour market strategy. That is what will secure the future of those high-technology, safety-critical jobs.

I am grateful to the right hon. Lady, who is being very generous in giving way. She is nearly making the right point, which is that the people who work in oil and gas need the transition. This Government are pulling the rug from under them. Hydrogen, carbon capture, floating offshore wind and other developing technologies—even tidal—are not growing quickly enough and fast enough to give those people jobs. That is the point. The Government are destroying the very engineering capability we need for the transition and putting up emissions while doing so, by having imports instead of domestic production. It is mad.

I could not disagree more with the right hon. Gentleman. I have a lot of respect for him, but surely he will have seen the figures on the relative growth of the renewables industry in the UK compared with other industries. Those people see that there is now a long-term plan for that industry from this Government. That was not the case before—there was not that certainty there before. I want to see renewed, deepened engagement, particularly with the workforce and the trade unions representing them, and a move towards the active labour market strategy that we need, but to suggest that we are not on the right trajectory now after so many years of neglect is, frankly, laughable.

I want to end on this point. Even setting aside the lengthy lead-in time for new drilling, expanding it would not shield our country from oil and gas price shocks, because the price is set internationally. The shadow Secretary of State did not even acknowledge that. She spoke about imports, but she did not talk about prices, because she knows the reality. We need to stop distant conflicts impacting household bills in the UK. We need to get bills down, not keep them artificially high. We need cheap green tech and scaled-up clean power. We do not need the kind of cheap political posturing represented by the Opposition motion.

Net zero is a socialist dream, because it epitomises centralised control, Government interference in daily life and redistribution. When an idea becomes immune to scrutiny, it is precisely then that scrutiny is most needed. That definitely applies in the case of Britain’s rush to net zero, because in our haste, we risk undermining our economy, our energy security and, ultimately, the resilience we will need to face the future. Caring for the environment is necessary, reducing pollution is noble, and innovation in energy is essential, but pursuing an inflexible target at any cost without regard for the consequences is madness.

First, take the economic reality. The UK is attempting one of the most rapid energy transitions ever undertaken by an advanced economy. Entire industries are being reshaped or phased out, and energy systems built over decades are being dismantled in a matter of years. And who bears the cost? It is not abstract. It is households facing rising energy bills, businesses struggling with higher operating costs, and manufacturers deciding whether to stay in Britain or to relocate to countries with cheaper, more reliable energy.

The GMB Scotland secretary recently described Labour’s policies as “industrial calamity”. Does my hon. Friend agree with that?

We only have to speak to businesses across our constituencies, and they will tell us about the reality of the economic calamity caused by decisions taken by this Government and the costs bearing down on them.

The reality is that choices made by this Government continue to hollow out our industrial base, not because we lack skill or ambition but because energy, which is the lifeblood of industry, has become prohibitively costly. Energy security is not a theoretical concept; it is the difference between stability and vulnerability. It is the ability to heat our homes, power hospitals and keep the economy running, no matter what is happening anywhere else in the world. Yet at this moment, when we should be strengthening our domestic energy supply, we are choosing to restrict it.

That brings us perfectly to the North sea, which is one of the UK’s greatest strategic assets. Beneath those waters lie opportunity—reserves of natural gas that could provide reliable domestic energy for years to come—yet the Government are choosing to turn away from it. The argument often made is that extracting more gas contradicts our climate commitments and locks us into the past, but that overlooks a crucial fact: the UK will continue to be dependent on fossil fuels for decades to come.

That is where the comparison with Norway becomes so instructive. Norway is often held up as a leader in environmental responsibility, and it has chosen not to turn its back on North sea resources. It has done the opposite: it has increased gas extraction, recognising both the economic value and the strategic importance of domestic supply. Norway understands something that we would do well to remember: energy independence is not at odds with environmental ambition; it underpins it. The UK risks increasing its dependence on imports, even as domestic resources remain available.

I agree with the hon. Member about the need for energy security, and certainly we do not want a supply chain that depends on the People’s Republic of China, which could lead to economic coercion. Does he share my view that the deduction is that we need home-grown manufacturing for renewable energy infrastructure?

We are increasingly dependent on China because of decisions taken by this Government. The pursuit of renewables-based future energy infrastructure is increasingly dependent on countries that are adversarial to us and pose a risk to our long-term energy security. The hon. Member is right on that point.

This is not just about energy; it is also about jobs and public finances—something the Government know only too well, following their economic choices. The North sea has long been a vital source of revenue for the Treasury, creating billions of pounds that support public services and infrastructure. Analysis by Offshore Energies UK shows that there is £165 billion of estimated economic value in the North sea, should the Government muster the political will to seize it.

Will the hon. Member give way?

I will not give way any further.

To accelerate the decline of that sector without a fully viable replacement is not just economically risky but fiscally short-sighted. At the same time, we must consider the livelihoods tied to the industry, as colleagues across the House have stressed. Tens of thousands of skilled workers depend directly or indirectly on oil and gas. These are not abstract numbers; they are engineers, technicians, supply chain workers, families and, more importantly, whole communities. If we move too quickly without a realistic transition plan, we do not simply phase out an industry; we create unemployment, lose expertise and weaken entire regions.

That is happening right now. This is not just a theoretical concern; it is raised by those who are closest to the issue. Trade union leaders have been clear. The general secretary of the GMB has described the Government’s stance on oil and gas as “madness”. Unite the union has warned plainly that such policies will put jobs at risk. Even Juergen Maier said that extracting more gas and oil from the North sea would boost jobs and tax revenues. Those are not voices that the Government usually say are opposed to progress; they are voices that represent working people, so why on earth are the Government choosing to ignore them?

We have to consider the global context. The UK accounts for a relatively small share of global emissions. Even if we were to reach net zero tomorrow, the impact on global temperatures would be limited. Meanwhile, major economies that compete with us continue to rely heavily on fossil fuels as they balance growth, development and transition. That is why we have to get the balance right. True leadership from the Government lies not in symbolic gestures but in practical solutions that can be adopted globally. The pursuit of net zero, as currently framed, risks becoming an exercise in self-imposed constraint—one that weakens our economy, compromises our energy security, threatens jobs, reduces vital tax revenues and lowers living standards for all, while delivering limited benefit.

I welcome this debate. As we have heard, oil and gas are likely to remain part of our energy mix for years to come, but recent global instability underscores a fundamental point: true energy security comes from reliable domestic and renewable sources, not from continued exposure to volatile international fossil fuel markets. Even if production were to increase, it would not shield the UK from global price fluctuations. Oil and gas extracted from the North sea is sold on international markets at global prices. While that may increase profits for fossil fuel companies—no doubt welcomed by the Opposition—it does little to reduce bills for our constituents. Moreover, new licences do not translate into immediate supply, and it can take many years, often well over a decade, from licensing to production. In reality, UK oil and gas production represents only a small share of the global market, and even a significant increase in output would not meaningfully influence global prices or reduce domestic energy bills.

Private companies operating in the North sea are under no obligation to prioritise UK consumers—the Norwegian example is interesting—so I return to the central question of how additional North sea production will reduce bills today. The only way that could plausibly happen would be through significant market interventions, such as restricting exports or imposing below-market price caps on domestically produced energy. Some Labour Members may agree with that, but I am not sure Opposition Members would. Such measures would represent a profound shift in policy, so if that is what the Opposition are proposing, they should be clear about it. If not, they should be honest with the public: expanding North sea oil extraction is unlikely to have a meaningful impact on energy bills in the short, medium, or even long term.

There is, however, an alternative that is not tied to global fossil fuel markets: renewable energy. I will take solar power as an example, but geothermal energy also has great potential. I recognise the criticism raised about the use of critical minerals, including in the remarks by the right hon. Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho), as well as concerns about reliance on the supply chain in China and labour standards in global supply chains. Those are legitimate issues, but there is also a significant opportunity for domestic innovation and manufacturing.

In my constituency, Power Roll is pioneering the next generation of solar technology. Its lightweight, flexible solar films use microgroove structures, and it does not rely on rare earth minerals. It has the potential for low-cost, scalable production here in the United Kingdom. The Government have already engaged with this technology, but it is now time to go further and support commercialisation, scale up production and invest in the infrastructure needed to bring British-made solar to market at scale.

By diversifying our energy mix and reducing reliance on volatile international fossil fuel markets, we can strengthen energy security and reduce exposure to external shocks. I say to the Government that this is the time to back British business, back innovation, and back domestic manufacturing, because that is how we will deliver energy security, economic growth, jobs—

Order.

I will start with some facts: energy security is national security, global instability is rife, and our closest ally is now, at best, hugely unpredictable, and it is questionable whether it is reliable. When the UK Government should be protecting energy supply, they are instead sacrificing North sea jobs and communities on the altar of ideology. Job losses continue month on month, and the loss of skills is rife. “Just transition” are mere words for the communities affected. For me, this is a repeat of what Thatcher did to Scotland’s mining communities and the steel industry in Motherwell in the ’80s, destroying an industry without proper future planning and transition arrangements. Scottish Labour MPs—indeed, all Labour MPs—should be ashamed of their Government’s actions in that regard. It is utterly shameful.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way, which is generous of him. I have been very critical of my Government in relation to the closure of Grangemouth refinery, but I will give you the opportunity of being critical of your Government’s inaction on the issue.

I think I am here to scrutinise what your Government are doing—that is the job of MPs in the House of Commons. I would also say that Conservative Members are no better on this. Government Members have an ideology of driving towards net zero and clean power, but it appears with no regard for the North sea; Conservative Members have an ideology of protecting oil and gas in the North sea, while getting rid of climate change targets. The industry does not like either of those positions—not the oil and gas sector, and not the renewables sector—and everybody in the Chamber knows that. Those sectors need each other to survive, and they need the skills to transition from one to the other. If we lose skills in the oil and gas sector, we will not develop the renewables sector as quickly as we need to, and those are the facts of the situation. If those skills and jobs are lost, or disappear into other places around the world, such as the Caspian sea or the Gulf of Mexico, they will not easily be brought back.

The hon. Gentleman talks about the North sea industry and ideology. What were his views when his Government were in coalition with the Green party, which wilfully wanted to destroy those jobs immediately overnight because of ideology? Did he support that Government coalition?

I supported the coalition at the time because we were gaining plenty of other benefits from it, but I concede that I was not 100% supportive of its position on oil and gas. I suggest that under the current SNP leadership, there is a balanced view of the North sea, and a pragmatic approach to protecting jobs in its oil and gas sectors, while still driving towards renewable jobs and the reindustrialisation of Scotland through the diversification into renewables that we need, recognising that oil and gas will be needed for decades to come.

There is some confusion about current SNP policy on oil and gas. Is it, or is it not, still SNP policy to be against new oil and gas in the North sea?

Current SNP policy on oil and gas is that there should be a proper assessment of each individual application. That is the normal licensing process. I would think most Members of the House would recognise that if a process is put in place, it should be applied rigorously and consistently.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

No, I will not give way again because I do not have much time.

There are many reasons why we need to support oil and gas, not least protecting the workforce and not losing the skills. There are also numerous other areas where the Government are not making decisions quickly enough. On the transmission network’s use of system charges, Government policy has taken 18 to 20 months to come through, and it will be several more months before it is in place. That will be after the start of allocation round 8, which is being accelerated, and many companies in the North sea are saying that they will hold on and wait for AR9 before making an investment decision, because they want certainty. That lack of certainty, pace and pragmatism is preventing those jobs from being created and preventing a just transition.

I can apply the same point to Ardersier, which is in my constituency, and the proposal by a Chinese company, Ming Yang, which wants to invest there. I understand that the Government have reasons and things that they need to consider in this matter, but it has been on their desk for 18 months. A decision is needed to either move on to other investors or decide that there is a risk, so that we can mitigate the risk, let them get on with it, create supply chain jobs and have serious, high-skilled, high-paid jobs that will provide a just transition and a serious opportunity for North sea workers. That decision needs to be made sooner rather than later. We experienced an excessive delay in the run-up to decisions on carbon capture, usage and storage; it took forever to get there, and jobs have been lost because of that lost time.

Let me turn very quickly to consumer pricing. The Government have been waxing lyrical about price gouging by energy companies at the moment. The Government and previous Governments have been responsible for state-sponsored price gouging in the energy market, with the highest prices for electricity in Scotland. With that, I urge Members to—

Order.

There was a particularly unedifying exchange between Members in which the use of “you” and “your” was very liberal indeed; I assume that it was addressed directly to me. Can we all try to do a little better? While I am on my feet, I will say that after the next speaker, the time limit will have to be reduced to three minutes in order to get all Members in.

We know that we will be using North sea oil and gas for some time to come. I welcome the Chancellor’s announcement about short-term and medium-term measures to address the crisis in the middle east and the inevitable impact on our energy costs, as well as her quick action on heating oil.

The motion is, however, about not just the immediate crisis but a long-term strategic approach to energy security. The position of the Conservatives and Reform on increasing our reliance on oil and gas is based on false assumptions, not on the facts of the situation that we find ourselves in. This could be an ideological discussion—clearly, they are trying to turn it into another nonsense culture war—but does not need to be, because it is easy to overturn the Opposition argument with evidence and a number of facts.

First, gas and oil prices are inherently volatile and often under the control of malign international actors. Oil and gas prices are set internationally, and gas and oil from the North sea are traded internationally, so unless the Opposition are suggesting that we nationalise the North sea and seize its products, their suggestion that it would somehow help with pricing is absolute nonsense. The more that we rely on gas and oil, the longer that gas will set the price of electricity. Of course, oil sets the price of all sorts of things, from transport to food and energy.

Gas setting the price of electricity is bad, because it makes electricity cost more. Conversely, the higher the level of wind, solar, nuclear and storage, the less gas will set the price of electricity, and the cheaper that electricity can become. The more that we move away from technology that is reliant on gas and oil, whether it is at home, in transport or in industry, the less we are subject to geopolitical storms, such as the invasion of Ukraine or the current crisis in the middle east.

Does the hon. Member agree that the central claim of this motion simply does not withstand scrutiny? Even if new fields are approved, the oil and gas will still be sold at international prices and will do nothing to shield British consumers from future shocks. The economic case is already clear that renewables are cheaper to generate.

The hon. Lady is absolutely correct. The central premise of the motion simply does not stand up to any scrutiny.

Secondly, the Opposition want to talk about levies to pay for the cost of new clean energy infrastructure, but they conveniently forget that all energy infrastructure needs to be renewed and replaced. Wind, solar and nuclear are cheaper than new gas and oil infrastructure. We also need to improve our grid, and that has to be paid for somehow. Whichever way we cut it, we need to build that infrastructure and pay for it, but the Conservatives and Reform simply do not have an answer on how they would do that.

To be really clear, and to build on the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds), the skills of North sea gas and oil workers are absolutely vital in building and operating that new infrastructure. They have fantastic skills, and they need to be part of the clean energy transition.

Last week, I met a Ukrainian delegation as part of the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee. It described in very brutal and frank terms how Putin has used energy as a weapon of war and the severe impact that has had on the people of Ukraine. Ukraine’s previous reliance on gas had left it exposed to Putin using energy in this way, and its message was clear: the only way to get energy security and keep the lights on domestically is with home-grown clean energy, with distributed generation and storage, providing protection against Putin’s attacks and the wider geopolitical instability that we have seen.

The economic case for clean energy has been very clearly made. The arguments made by the Opposition in favour of continuing our reliance on oil and gas are nonsense. Let us not forget—

Will the hon. Member give way?

I would like to finish.

Finally, climate change in and of itself is a huge threat to our economic security, our physical health, the entirety of our wellbeing and the ability to feed ourselves. The Opposition say, “If we transition to clean energy, it will not make much of an impact”, but actually it will, because we are being global leaders. Every half a degree that we prevent in heating will save hundreds of thousands of lives every year.

We must do something; we cannot sit on our hands and do nothing, as the Opposition would like us to do. This Government are meeting the challenge of climate change, not with hair shirts or by trying to do without, but by building a better world. We are improving our quality of life, with cleaner air—we are not killing tens of thousands of people with dirty air every year—warmer homes and good clean energy jobs.

It is a pleasure to take part in this debate and to follow the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge), who follows in a tradition of Government Back Benchers standing up and trying to make the case for the utterly insane, the truly crazy and the utterly groundless. I feel more sorry for the hon. Lady than I do for the Ministers on the Front Bench, because we know that this impossible position cannot be maintained.

I do not know whether the Government are on U-turn No. 13, 14, 15 or 16—who can count them?—but I guarantee that it is impossible to maintain the current position; it rests on a number of fallacies. The hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale said it as passionately as any of the Government Members, did she not? They say, “Oh, it is outrageous! The Conservatives are suggesting that our producing more oil and gas in the North sea will change the global price.” Well, I went back to the motion, and nowhere does it say that. That is the case of the “crazies” on the Government Benches—I do not know if that is parliamentary or not—and I include the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Pippa Heylings), in that. This is lunacy made flesh.

On the subject of the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Pippa Heylings), it was a shame that she did not take my intervention, because she may have been able to answer this question. She was very keen to talk about what happened under the Conservative Government and how we need to have renewables, but does my right hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) find it incredulous that at no moment did the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire mention that it was Nick Clegg who cancelled all the nuclear power stations? He said that he was not going to invest in something that would not come along until 2022.

You can’t intervene on an intervention!

My right hon. Friend is right. I was incredulous when listening to the incredible things that the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire said.

Let me go back to this big, passionate attack. That production will not change the global oil price, but it will help to employ 200,000 people in this country, with all the engineering expertise and the deep supply chain in this country, in oil and gas. It will help to provide gas, nearly all of which—practically 100% of the gas produced in the North sea—comes into the UK grid. Nearly all of it is consumed here. Some of it goes through interconnectors in either direction the other way, but the idea that it does not directly contribute to our energy security is for the birds.

I return to the point about price, because Labour colleagues put so much effort into saying, “How dare they suggest that it will change the price?” There are localised prices, so it is also not true to say that oil and gas have a global price and we have to take that price regardless. As the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice) interjected earlier, in the United States, the price of gas is between a third and a quarter of the price that it is here. Getting supply and demand in the right balance does make a difference. Relying on LNG means that we have to liquefy it, gasify it, ship it with specialist ships and put it into specialist infrastructure to bring it into the UK gas grid, which all costs money. It is even more ironic, given the attitudes of Labour Members, that according to the North Sea Transition Authority, that gas comes with four times the embedded emissions. It is environmentally insane as well as economically insane.

Does my right hon. Friend acknowledge the comments made by Greg Jackson, the founder of Octopus Energy, who said that importing LNG has a greater carbon footprint than extraction from the North sea? Does he also agree that Labour and the Liberal Democrats are now acknowledging that the renewables market is itself not competitive?

For the purposes of today, I will leave aside the renewables market, but I notice that RenewableUK agrees with the chief executive of Octopus Energy that it is crazy, along with the heads of the unions responsible. They all agree that this is crazy.

There is going to be a U-turn, and we are going to have the comic sight of the poor Minister on the Front Bench—a very likeable and very competent Minister—coming to this House to explain why the exact opposite of what he is arguing today is now the truth. That is going to happen, and it has to happen, because if the Government do not U-turn, we will lose jobs, tax revenue and energy security. I notice that those are the three qualities that are in the motion, because they are the vital things that we are missing by not drilling for oil and gas in the North sea while we continue to import it. We are importing more, with higher emissions than if we produced it here, and the net result is that we do not consume or burn a single drop less of oil or gas. The Labour party’s position is untenable.

I will start with the things that we all agree on. I think that across the House, we all acknowledge that the international energy prices we face in this country are too high. As the Minister is on record as saying, there is a rollercoaster effect when it comes to the price of gas. Today, it is 149p per therm; it was 120p per therm in February 2025, and it was 38p per therm in February 2021. We have to acknowledge the fact that oil and gas prices are going up around the world, particularly gas prices, and the impact can be felt not just in the jobs that the hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) rightly spoke about, but in jobs in those industries that are gas-dependent.

The thing that I find difficult to stomach is when we talk about energy in the round, as if there is only one type of energy and everything will eventually run off it. Energy is a diverse group of ways of powering things. It can be electrical or nuclear, but in most of our foundational industries, it is gas. We acknowledge that gas will be here for a very long time—we will have to use it to power the kilns that make the bricks to build the houses we want to build. We will need gas to power the furnaces in the foundries that make the metal and steel for our defence development and manufacturing. If we want to make paper, glass, cement or lime in this country, we need gas. So many parts of the economic powerhouse that is the United Kingdom are dependent on gas, and while I agree with my Labour colleagues that we should move at pace to transition to electricity where that is possible, there are sectors in this country where that transition simply is not possible.

My hon. Friend is making an outstanding case. Does he also agree that gas is an important feed stock in a number of critical industries, such as the production of ammonia, which is essential in the agricultural sector?

Absolutely. If we want to make fertiliser or other industrial gases in this country, we need natural gas to power those processes. There is no other way—the chemistry simply does not exist to create the gases we need without using natural gas. As such, although I absolutely support transitioning towards net zero and towards electricity, we have to recognise that great swathes of our industries simply cannot do so, and if they can, they do not have the capital to make the research and development investments that are necessary. We cannot yet fire a kiln with hydrogen in this country. We cannot get a stable supply of electricity to kilns in this country, not least because in the places where those factories are, such as Stoke-on-Trent, the grid capacity to do the hook-up simply does not exist and will not exist for generations to come.

When we talk about the transition towards net zero and more electrical generation, what are we going to say to the places that cannot do it? When we say, “It’s all going to be done through renewable energy”, what message do we send to workers in Stoke-on-Trent and in Denby in Derbyshire whose sector simply cannot transition away from gas? I want there to be more renewable energy. I want that technology to exist, but it is not there yet, and every time we forget that, we are talking about writing off jobs and livelihoods in the places that need them most.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Very briefly.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we also need to see the hydrogen storage and transport model issued by the Government as quickly as possible?

Hydrogen has to be part of the future mix. Some very interesting tests are being done in Germany, where hydrogen is being mixed with gas to power some kilns and energy-intensive processes. That technology is very expensive, though, and most companies in the UK cannot afford it—only a handful can—so, yes, we need that investment strategy.

Will my hon. Friend give way?

Very, very briefly.

My hon. Friend is making some really good points. There are certain industries that do need gas, so does he agree that we need to shepherd that limited resource carefully, and that the transition in other areas of energy will support us to keep that gas and oil where we cannot replace it?

We can shepherd, yes, but the Government have to get to grips with how much we pay for importing that gas. That is where we are dependent on international markets. For electricity generation, the Government enter into contracts for difference, which are very lucrative for suppliers. Why are we not looking at such contracts for gas production? At a point when we expect there to be a transition away from gas—and therefore demand for production and the price of gas will fall away—why are we not saying that there will be some kind of Government-backed contract for difference for suppliers, so that those energy-intensive industries that require gas can get a stable price point for generations to come and we can protect jobs?

I am sure that when the Minister responds, he will turn to the tab in his file about the British industrial competitiveness scheme and the supercharger. I just want to reiterate—because it seems like no one in Government is listening—that those schemes do not apply to gas-intensive industries. As the Chancellor said today, and as Ministers have said from the Dispatch Box in the past, they are for electricity-intensive industries. If we are going to support energy-intensive industries in this country, it cannot be through those schemes alone.

There is simply no case for opening new oil and gas wells in the North sea, for approving Rosebank and Jackdaw, or for removing the windfall tax from oil and gas companies. It is inaccurate, irresponsible and immoral for the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho), to suggest otherwise in her motion. Expanding North sea drilling will do nothing to support UK energy security or jobs, as the Lib Dem spokesperson—the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Pippa Heylings)—and the right hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) laid out very clearly in their speeches.

Will the hon. Lady give way?

Those Members answered the challenges from the shadow Secretary of State, so I will move on, given the limit on time.

Given that the measures proposed in the motion will not secure our energy supply, protect jobs or bring down bills, what will drilling more oil and gas from the North sea do? It will undo so much progress we have made in cutting greenhouse gas emissions. We are proud to have ended polluting coal power in the UK—indeed, I thought the shadow Secretary of State was proud of that—but allowing Rosebank would be the equivalent of running 56 coal-fired power stations for a year, undoing all that good work. Drilling more oil and gas from the North sea will also make some people a lot of money, including those on the Reform and Conservative Benches who take dirty money from fossil fuel donors.

Will the hon. Lady give way?

No, I will not, thank you—I will carry on. [Interruption.] Fine, I will give way.

I thank the hon. Lady for giving way. Could she explain why the biggest advocates for climate transition in this country—RenewableUK, Greg Jackson from Octopus and the chair of Great British Energy—say that she is wrong?

I beg the right hon. Lady’s pardon, but they say I am wrong about what?

They say that the hon. Lady’s position on the North sea is wrong, and that we should keep drilling there.

My reliance is on the evidence, which shows that 93% of recoverable oil and gas in the British parts of the North sea has already been extracted. Whatever does remain will be sold on the international market to the highest bidder, as many Members have already pointed out. If the proposals in the shadow Secretary of State’s motion were implemented, they would do nothing for energy security and nothing for jobs.

Will the hon. Lady give way?

No, I will not. I will continue for now.

What the shadow Secretary of State’s motion would achieve is the raising of a lot of money. When war inflates oil and gas prices, fossil fuel bosses cash in. Just five companies made nearly half a trillion dollars in the years after the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Of course, those obscene profits should be taxed through the energy profits levy, because nobody should be cashing in on conflict. Again, I draw your attention, Madam Deputy Speaker, and the attention of those who may be watching from home, to the proportion of donations from fossil fuel donors that go to certain politicians in this Chamber. The Chancellor said earlier today that she would crack down on price-gouging and profiteering, so I hope that this work will maintain the principles of the windfall tax in whatever shape it comes.

The Government have done good work in driving forward clean energy and banning new oil and gas licences, and I desperately urge them not to backtrack by approving Rosebank, although I understand that they will not be able to comment on that today. I am also deeply concerned about the fact that, despite officially banning new oil and gas licences, the Government are creating a whopping loophole by introducing the transitional energy certificates, aka tiebacks. This is allowing new drilling at a new site on a technicality, because it involves drilling a new well but, rather than installing a new rig on top of it, attaching it to an existing rig with a very long hose, so it is technically not “new”. Opening up new oil and gas wells now is indefensible when we know that every drop of oil and gas burned puts our future further at risk, so I cannot support a Government amendment that “welcomes” these tiebacks. I ask Ministers to assure me that, at the very least, scope 3 emissions will be considered when the Government are deciding whether to grant the transitional energy certificates.

Committing to renewable energy means change, and change can be unsettling, but if it is done right, the Government can ensure that it pays off for everyone. I have been campaigning for an energy jobs guarantee to support workers who are currently employed in the oil and gas sector to move into jobs in the green sectors. That could be done by ending the £2.7 billion a year in subsidies that the Chancellor hands the fossil fuel industry in tax breaks, and using that valuable public money to back workers rather than propping up an industry that is in terminal decline. Our dependence on oil and gas is making us poorer—that much is clear—and it is making oil companies richer. There is no future in fossil fuels, so I hope that the Ministers will give no ground to the reckless statements put forward today.

Some of the broad themes of the topics that we are discussing today are very important. How do we drive down bills at a time when all our constituents will be worried about the cost of living? How do we provide energy security for our country at a time when the volatility of oil and gas around the world is driving real concerns—not just for our communities, but for some of the big businesses and industrial bases on which we have relied for generations? And, crucially, how do we ensure that when we go back to our constituencies and look not just the current generations but future generations in the eye, we know we have done everything we can to finally take the existential threat of climate change seriously, having done far too little over the last decade to ensure that we are on the right track when it comes to living up to our environmental commitments? It is against that backdrop that I am disappointed by our focus on such a distracting topic today.

There are big, big questions to be asked about how we can drive forward the energy transition in the best and most just way possible, but I am afraid that focusing on immaterial discussions about very small—fractional—differences in the amount of oil and gas that we end up extracting from the North sea is a wrongheaded and at best distracting way in which to lead this debate. However, I understand why such a distraction is attractive to the Opposition.

Does the hon. Member think that this is a minuscule, distracting issue for the tens of thousands of workers who have lost their jobs because of the policies of this Government on this very subject?

Not at all. I think that that is why the last Government’s shameful failure to invest in the transition—their failure, in fact, to do much to create a better offer for the 50% of North sea oil and gas workers who lost their jobs over the last decade—is so shocking. It is why we have to do better; it is why investing in the reshoring of manufacturing around green energy supply chains is so important; it is about thinking creatively about how we can be more activist as a state in shaping the job opportunities of the future; and, yes, it is about ensuring that support packages are in place at the right times. But if we are talking about a just transition for North sea oil and gas, I do not think the record of the hon. Gentleman’s Government is anything that we should be looking to learn from.

I am going to make some progress.

I can see, though, why distractions are so attractive to the Conservatives, because facing up to reality would mean facing up to the failure to deliver more on renewables, which we know would have reduced prices by about a third last year.

Does the hon. Gentleman realise—he may not, because I know that some of the stuff he is fed by those on the Government Front Bench may not help him—that whereas only 6.5% of electricity came from renewables in 2010, the proportion was over 50% when we left power? He can criticise the Conservative Government all he likes, but suggesting that one of the greatest transformations and moves to renewables by any country in the history of the world was some kind of non-event is to mislead the House, and I know that the hon. Gentleman, who is an honourable man, would never seek to do that.

Order. The right hon. Member is very experienced. He should say “inadvertently mislead the House”. We do not accuse colleagues of misleading the House. Would the right hon. Member like to correct the record?

I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker. If I said anything to that effect, I withdraw it.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his confirmation that his party used to believe in the future once, but when it comes to clean energy, I think the fact that we have been able to make so much further progress so quickly shows that there clearly were things that the last Government could have done but did not. Whether we are talking about a failure to crack on with new nuclear at speed and remove those regulatory barriers, about a failure to consider the levy reforms that we have already introduced to deliver tangible reductions in people’s bills this April, or about a failure to think about creative ways in which we can drive down energy demand for households across the UK through a proper warm homes plan rather than exploitative rip-offs delivered by con merchants under their eco-schemes, I think we have far better answers of which we can be proud.

It is disappointing that we have not had a more sincere debate on this issue today, because I think there are important questions, which are worthy of challenge, about how we can deliver this transition in a way that truly delivers on our climate and energy communities and for all those who paying bills at the moment. The Fingleton review points to some important principles showing how we can do far better when it comes to big energy projects. I would welcome further scrutiny from the Opposition on that, and on how we can deliver it at pace to make really impactful changes in a nuclear landscape that was left stalled and in stasis under their policies.

As we look to drive forward the green transition, it is right that, over time, we remove the role of gas in setting the price of power, and there are regulatory reforms that we could be making now to try and improve the position. There is some interesting analysis from Stonehaven showing how bringing gas power plants into the regulated asset base could do a far better job of stabilising prices, and would produce a better result for consumers and, crucially, businesses and industrial users. There is also more work to be done to continue the Secretary of State’s leadership on auction innovation. In the last auction, innovations that we introduced after years of lack of reform meant that we were able to lean in at an opportune moment to expand the amount of power that we were able to purchase when prices were lower than market expectations.

I know the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for East Surrey, thinks that that insurance policy was not valid, which I think is a particularly challenging position to take at a time when we are seeing the cost of inaction shooting up under oil and gas. [Interruption.] I would welcome further challenges from the right hon. Lady about how we could innovate further. I know that the last Government’s record did not do a very good job of bringing out the best value when it came to auction design, but this is exactly the type of area in which cross-party challenge should be welcomed to ensure we can continue to do better. Instead, we are focusing on distractions that will do nothing for our constituents and that, sadly, do not prompt the very important questions, such as those posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell), on how we can better ensure that where we need to continue to rely on gas power, we direct it towards sectors that this country has long depended on.

It is a sad truth that this debate has not lived up to the importance of the topic that we are discussing today. The Conservatives used to believe in the future. It is sad that they do not any more.

Time and again, we hear this Labour Government’s rhetoric about being pro-growth, pro-jobs and pro-economy. Despite these claims, they have continued to do the very opposite, as has been reiterated by Conservative Members. That is why I absolutely support the motion before us, in the name of the official Opposition.

It would be remiss of me to come to this debate on oil and gas and not speak about the impact that the war in the middle east is having on our business community, our manufacturers and our engineers. They are all experiencing a rise in energy costs, which are soaring, including our farmers and those in our rural communities. The price of red diesel is going up exponentially, and there is a huge amount of nervousness about supply and further increases in costs. To put this in context, the cost of red diesel was 67p a litre in February but has risen to about 135p a litre this month, impacting many in our farming community. I spoke to many of those farmers yesterday, and they made the point that we simply cannot talk about food security without talking about energy security. The two rely on each other and go hand in hand, and they need to be treated together, not as separate entities.

On Sunday, my son and I watched as the first fertiliser of the season started to be spread on the fields. It reminded me of the importance of the orders that are being placed now in the farming industry, the uncertainty that is being created—from fertiliser to diesel and so on—and the impact that it could have on the profitability of such businesses going forward.

That is absolutely right, and my hon. Friend makes an excellent point. There is an additional cash-flow pressure on many food producers, which is why it is absolutely crucial that we have an energy strategy, alongside a food security strategy, under this Government.

I will pick up on the point about the green transition that has been made by Labour Members, and refer specifically to a live example that is happening in my constituency: the Calderdale wind farm, which is going to be the largest wind farm development in England. It was initially proposed that 65 wind turbines would be built on Walshaw Moor, which neighbours my constituency.

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on having the largest wind farm in Europe in his constituency.

Well, it has not been built yet. The proposal will come before the Energy Secretary, because he removed the onshore wind farm moratorium that the Conservative Government put in place. This is a development that I am staunchly opposed to. Why? It is because it is due to be built on precious peatland, which in a good year has a millimetre of growth. Despite that, the application coming before us is for a wind farm development, with deep foundations, on protected peatland. Road infrastructure is going to be built, wiring infrastructure is going to be built, and there will be consequences for flooding in neighbouring constituencies. I am staunchly against the project, which is why I cannot for the life of me understand why this Labour Government, alongside the Green party, are determined to roll out renewable energy schemes that have a hugely detrimental impact on our environment.

The Calderdale wind farm will have a hugely negative impact not only on our environment, our biodiversity and our precious peatland, but on the historic landscape in which it will be built. I do not know whether you have watched “Wuthering Heights” yet, Madam Deputy Speaker, but the proposed wind farm will be built on Brontë country. The Labour Government churn out this narrative of the green transition, but communities and environments such as those neighbouring my constituency are going to be negatively impacted.

I understand that the wind farm that the hon. Gentleman is talking about would generate about a quarter of a million houses’ worth of energy every year. Given that his party is currently saying that the failure to approve an oil site, which would deliver power for 1.5 million homes throughout the entirety of its lifespan, is an existential risk for this country’s energy security, can he not see the slight inconsistency in the argument he is advancing?

The narrative that continues to come from those on the Government Benches is that we must have a roll-out of more renewable energy, without necessarily looking at the negative consequences on the environment. A development of the size that is being proposed on the outskirts of my constituency will not be carbon neutral, given the amount of energy that is needed to build the wind turbines and the negative impact on the carbon sequestration of the peatland. That is why I am firmly opposed to the Calderdale wind farm, and I 100% back the motion before this House.

I would like to draw the House’s attention to my membership of Unite the union.

I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds): the framing of this debate is somewhat misleading. The Conservatives and Reform have no real desire to lower people’s bills; nor are they interested in saving jobs or the prosperity of working-class communities. We can see that from looking at history. Let us look at the coalmines: right hon. and hon. Members on the Conservative and Reform Benches would have been on the side of Thatcher, MacGregor, Ridley, Walker and Heseltine. This debate is really about Tory and Reform Members revelling in the free market. The only extraction they really care about is that of corporate profit and shareholder dividends.

I am ideologically opposed to the Conservatives and Reform UK, but what really pains me is being at odds with my own party. I have been clear that there should be no ban without a plan, and there really must be a plan, because the danger is that oil and gas workers will become the modern-day coalminers. Thousands of workers are nervous about what the future holds, and they are right to be—they have seen billionaire Jim Ratcliffe’s Ineos and the Chinese state company PetroChina close the Grangemouth oil refinery, ending 100 years of Scottish industrial history. The Conservative Government did not want to know about the issue, and the SNP Government refused to engage with Ratcliffe, the Chinese and the trade unions that represent the workers even, though they knew about the planned closure for three years. The SNP abandoned the workers in the Grangemouth community.

Some £434.5 million has been committed for Grangemouth’s industrial future from this Labour Government—I have had to fight tooth and nail for it. The excellent news is that 500 jobs in the chemical industry have been saved, and that Project Willow is starting to deliver new jobs through the MiAlgae and Celtic Renewables announcements. However, I say to the Minister that the Government must match their ambitions with much more action. That means providing thousands of good, well-paid jobs and getting the new industries we need into Grangemouth and other industrial towns like it. There is still more than £190 million available in the National Wealth Fund for my constituency—we should start using it.

I also say to the Government that it is common sense to take at least some form of ownership in these new clean, green industries. They should break the cycle of reliance on private capital, foreign ownership and volatile fossil fuel markets and do more of what a Labour Government should.

For the final Back-Bench contribution, I call Gregory Stafford.

It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman); it is like a greatest hits of the 1970s.

At a time when the war in Ukraine continues and instability spreads across the middle east, energy is not simply an economic question but a matter of national security. Yet under this Labour Government, Britain is making itself more dependent, not less. The irony is that even Labour Back Benchers know this—they are in the papers every day telling us that offshoring emissions while importing energy from abroad does nothing for climate change and weakens our resilience.

The reality is stark: Britain is not reducing demand for oil and gas; we are simply choosing to import it. In 2024 alone, we imported more than $11 billion-worth of crude from Norway. At the same time, liquefied natural gas shipped from abroad can carry up to four times the emissions of gas produced here at home. This is not environmental leadership, but carbon outsourcing with a higher bill attached—a bill that is being paid by British businesses and families, who are facing some of the highest energy costs in Europe.

Labour’s central argument this afternoon simply does not stand up. Labour Members claim that producing more gas in the North sea will not reduce prices because there is a so-called world price, but that misses the fundamental point that our own home-grown gas and oil produces hundreds of thousands of jobs. If we do not use it, we will miss out on billions in tax revenues that could be used to reduce energy prices for the consumer.

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that his party is also proposing a big tax cut for oil and gas companies in the removal of the EPL. He will have seen research from Oxford University suggesting that even if every new licence were taxed and that revenue was invested straight into energy subsidies, it could reduce bills by as little as £16 a year for households. Is that really the Tories’ ambition at the moment?

I understand that the figure is £25 billion, which is a significant injection into the Treasury however we look at it. The simple truth is this: if we increase domestic supply, we can ease pressure on prices, reduce reliance on expensive imported LNG and cut costs. That is not ideology—it is basic economics.

The idea that new licences would take too long does not survive scrutiny either. Much of the North sea’s infrastructure already exists. Pipelines and platforms have spare capacity. New fields can be tied into existing systems, accelerating production and reducing cost. What Labour presents as inevitability is in fact a political choice. In the non-statement the Chancellor made earlier today, she talked about cutting red tape. Perhaps she should think about cutting Red Ed first of all, because this choice has consequences.

The ban on new licences risks leaving 2.9 billion barrels of oil and gas in the ground and puts at risk 200,000 jobs. Those are not abstract numbers. They are skilled, well-paid jobs that have powered communities for generations. This is not transition; it is industrial retreat.

Is it not the case that Britain’s renewable economy is growing three times faster than the rest of the economy? If we were to retract our commitments to renewable energy and net zero, the investor confidence would reduce, which would be really bad for our European economy and the brilliant jobs that have been created in this industry, yet that is exactly what the Conservatives are proposing today.

If I were being generous, I would say merely that the hon. Member has not listened to my speech or read the motion in front of us. I have not mentioned anywhere that we will be cutting back on renewable energy.

If Labour’s position is misguided, the Liberal Democrats’ position is outright reckless. They would pile further taxes on the North sea through an expanded energy profits levy, despite clear evidence that such measures deter investment and ultimately reduce tax revenues. Some analyses suggest that scrapping the EPL could deliver an additional £25 billion to the Treasury over the next decade. At the same time, the Liberal Democrats would smother the sector in layers of environmental, social and governance reporting and regulation, slowing down investment, increasing costs and driving production overseas. And for what? They would do so to meet accelerated net zero targets that are divorced from the reality of how Britain actually uses its energy.

Here is the fundamental point: electricity accounts for only around a fifth of our total energy use. The rest still comes from oil and gas for heating, transport and industry. We are not about to replace that overnight; nor are there credible plans to do so from this Government. The choice is not between oil and gas or renewables. We need both. The real choice is whether we produce that energy here under our own environmental standards, supporting British jobs and British revenues, or whether we import it from abroad at a higher cost and with higher carbon. The British public understand this. Around three quarters say that we should produce our own oil and gas rather than rely on imports, and they are right. Our plan recognises that. It backs domestic production, cuts unnecessary net zero taxes and delivers cheaper energy while maintaining our environmental commitments. I say to Ministers: stop outsourcing our energy; stop exporting our jobs; and stop pretending that dependence is a virtue.

I call the shadow Minister.

Let me start by agreeing with fellow Aberdonian the right hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) in paying tribute to all the energy workers, who, over decades, have worked in incredibly dangerous conditions. Some gave their lives to ensuring that the lights stayed on and industry continued to function in this country. Many of them came from my constituency.

I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) for his outstanding contribution. He brought to the House’s attention the dependence of so many industries in this country to gas, and the de-industrialisation that we are seeing across so many aspects of our industry right now.

With war raging in the middle east and in Europe, Labour is a party being held captive by extremists who refuse to act in our national interest, who are content to see jobs lost in their thousands and who will not take advantage of our greatest asset lying untapped and unexplored under our own waters.

The hon. Member talks of the national interest, but does he agree that it was disgraceful that Gazprom was allowed to acquire an interest in the North sea in the years after 2011, without a word of protest from his party when it was in government?

We welcomed investment from around the world, but, obviously, we divested ourselves of any Russian investment in the North sea as soon as we could after Putin’s actions in Ukraine, as I am sure the hon. Member would have expected us to do as a responsible Government. On days like this we have to wonder whose side this Government are on, because unlike the Conservative Government, who acted in the national interest, they are not on the side of Britain or of the British people.

We have witnessed for four years now how Putin’s armies have weaponised energy not only to starve the people of Ukraine, but to weaken our continent. The Energy Secretary, if he were here, would tell us that that proves why we should double down on his plans to ditch oil and gas, except even under his ridiculously ambitious and unrealistic plans, Great Britain would still need gas to meet around 50% of its energy demand. The National Energy System Operator has highlighted that gas will be the UK’s energy of last resort for the next 10 to 20 years, and that we will require a diverse and resilient supply.

But Labour MPs—the enablers of this absurdity—would rather see us reliant on others for gas, such as Qatar or Norway, than on our own British industry. They would rather we get gas from other countries at a higher cost and with 15 times the emissions of our own supply, leaving us more exposed to price spikes.

To be absolutely clear, 100% of all British North sea gas goes directly into the British gas grid. I do wonder if Labour Members understand this, so let me explain: by choosing to use less from British waters, we have to import more and we become more insecure as a country. The real human tragedy at the centre of this blatant disregard for our national interest is playing out on rigs, in offices and in homes across the north-east of Scotland right now, and it is happening thanks to the Labour party, enabled by the Liberal Democrats.

While we are talking about the Liberal Democrats, we heard today from their spokeswoman, the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Pippa Heylings), that they do not support any new oil and gas licences. I think she might want to explain that to their candidate for the upcoming parliamentary election in Shetland, who warned of the impact if the Clair oilfield was not expanded, or their candidate for North East Scotland who said:

“We are going to need oil and gas for the foreseeable future and it is better to support production here than rely on imports of LNG from abroad which are more polluting.”

Which is it? What is the Liberal Democrats’ plan, and why do they always say one thing in this place and another thing everywhere else? Once again, we cannot trust a word that the Liberal Democrats say, but they are enabling the Labour party and choosing to see 1,000 jobs lost in the North sea every single month.

I am equally a fan of the hon. Member’s work, but I would like to make this very clear: it is not that we would have joined the war ongoing in the middle east; it is that we would not have left British bases and British assets undefended in the way that this Government shamefully did by removing assets from the region when we knew very well what was coming round the corner.

One thousand high-skilled, high-paid jobs are being lost every single month, and this is personal. I have the immense privilege of living in and representing the north-east of Scotland. To me, these jobs are not figures on a spreadsheet, as they are to Labour MPs. They are my constituents, neighbours, friends and family. The callousness and disregard with which the Labour party is treating that region and these people at the minute will not be forgotten.

The Labour party refuses to acknowledge it, but it is real and it is happening—and at frightening speed. People are, right now, having to make a terrible choice: either they hang around in the north-east of Scotland awaiting the long-promised yet never-delivered renewable jobs boom, which always seems to be just around the corner and which pays far less, or they leave their homes, communities and families and move overseas. Many, indeed most, are choosing the latter. They are leaving the country altogether, taking their families and, crucially, their skills out of the United Kingdom to countries that have Governments who are awake to the reality and who support their domestic oil and gas industries—to places like Houston, Riyadh, Calgary or Stavanger.

In Stavanger they are drilling right now in the very same sea that we could be drilling in, only to sell it back to us. It is utterly perverse. Workers in Aberdeen are going to any country with an oil and gas industry in which the eco-extremism that the Secretary of State is so enthralled by is not found in government. That, by the way, is every other country in the world where there is a domestic oil and gas industry.

It used to be said that in every country in the world where there is oil and gas, you can find an Aberdonian accent. It turns out that soon, the only place where you will not be able to find an Aberdonian oil worker is, in fact, Aberdeen. There has been a steady beat of job losses every single month since Labour entered government—from BP, Hunting, Harbour Energy, Chevron, Well-Safe, Petrofac, and Ithaca Energy.

Labour MPs talk about what we did in government, but during the 2014-15 energy price shock, when jobs were sadly lost in the north-east of Scotland, we commissioned Ian Wood to produce a review into the future of the North sea. We implemented a policy of maximum economic recovery from the North sea. We reduced taxes on our domestic oil and gas industry, and we stabilised the workforce in our last six years. During our time in government, we made the North sea the most investable basin in the world. What are the Labour Government doing? The exact opposite. They are seeing job losses and investment turn away. They are surrendering this country to the whims of dictators overseas.

I could go on about the job losses. All the companies I mentioned have had operations in this country for many years, and when they are not cutting jobs they are consolidating their operations. I therefore welcome the recent intervention from the hon. Member for Mid and South Pembrokeshire (Henry Tufnell) in calling for an end to the Government’s war on the North sea. We can add his name to the ever growing list of people and organisations calling on the Government to change course: the GMB, Unite, Tony Blair, Octopus’s Greg Jackson, Great British Energy’s own Juergen Maier, who was appointed by the Secretary of State, and RenewableUK. Why are all those people wrong and only the Secretary of State right?

Will the shadow Minister give way?

I will not because of time.

Notably, that list does not include one Scottish Labour MP. Indeed, some Scottish Labour MPs are actively campaigning to stop any production at all, with two of their number signing a letter asking the Secretary of State to block the Rosebank oilfield. For a moment, let us entertain the idea that clean power 2030 is not ridiculous and utterly undeliverable. Who does the Minister think will deliver it? The people with the skills needed for floating offshore wind are leaving in their thousands, and the assets to deploy those new technologies are moving overseas. Who does the Minister think will invest in the transition?

The Port of Aberdeen has recently invested in a new harbour to accommodate the long-promised boom in floating offshore wind, but there are no new turbines going out to sea today, the quayside has no blades waiting and the port is laying off staff because 60% of its revenue still comes from oil and gas; only 1% comes from renewables.

We could change course. I hope that Labour Members who represent Scottish constituents have paid close attention, and I hope they have thought about whose side they are on. Labour MPs have an opportunity to join us in the voting Lobby and demonstrate clearly whose side they are on. Are they on the side of British workers, our industry, our security and our economic success, or are they on the side of an increasingly isolated Secretary of State?

The Government could decide to vote to end the ban on new licences and unlock the 2.9 billion barrels of opportunity that lie below the sea. They could vote to scrap the energy profits levy and vote to approve the Rosebank and Jackdaw fields immediately, but it is clear that they will not. As ever, there is only one party with a plan to get Britain drilling again, to make Britain secure, to cut bills and to deliver a stronger economy and a stronger country. That is, and always will be, the Conservative and Unionist party.

This has been an interesting debate at times—at other times, perhaps it has not been—but it is a timely and important debate, as many people sitting at home will be watching the situation in the middle east concerned about the cost of living, our energy security and the impact that our energy policies have on their lives. Let me start, as the shadow Minister rightly did, with what I thought was an outstanding contribution from my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds). She rightly centred the debate, as others should have done, on the workers who have powered the country for decades. I have had the great pleasure of meeting many of them in the 20 months I have had this job—not on one visit to Aberdeen, but on many. They have done the job that we have asked of them in extraordinarily difficult circumstances. They have risked their lives—indeed, many have lost their lives—in the pursuit of the energy that we have used for six decades.

I will never diminish the role that the North sea has played for six decades in powering the country. It has been a source of energy, a source of revenue and a source of good jobs not just in the north-east of Scotland but beyond that in the east and north-east of England and right across the country. Its workers are sought after around the world for their skills and experiences.

My right hon. Friend rightly challenged what we have heard from the Opposition in the debate. Slogans do not protect those jobs. Standing up with nothing but rhetoric and pretending that the 70,000 jobs lost on their watch were somehow irrelevant will not help, and it diminishes the scale of the challenge we face.

Slogans will not build the jobs of the future. The shadow Minister talked about a lack of turbines in Aberdeen harbour, yet his party would rip up the auction that delivers the contracts that will create those jobs—and he has the brass neck to say that that is a problem with our Government’s policy. It is his policy that caused the problem.

The shadow Minister talked about numbers on a spreadsheet, as if we do not care about the workers caught up in this. That is why we are building the transition and investing in the future, while they ignored it. When we started becoming a net importer—not in July 2024, as some Opposition Members would like to pretend, but in 2003—we should have been looking at the transition. I am willing to accept that the previous Labour Government should have done more on this. The Conservatives should accept that over 14 years, as they saw thousands of jobs disappear from the industry, they should have been doing everything in their power to build up what came next. They failed to do that.

We have heard a number of straw man arguments put forward today about the North sea being closed. The North sea, right now, continues to send gas into our gas network and it will continue to do so for decades to come. However, the transition is hugely important. It has been under way for decades and we have to acknowledge how important it is to invest in what comes next.

The events of recent weeks should concentrate minds. We should have learned the right lessons coming out of the invasion of Ukraine but we did not, and we must now learn the right lessons coming out of this present crisis. Doubling down on fossil fuels does not give us energy security; it makes us depend even more on the very volatility that has driven us into economic problems time after time. More than half the economic shocks that have faced this country have been caused by fossil fuels, and the Conservative party’s answer is to double down and have even more of it. That is not a plan for the future of this country.

The only doubling down being done is by the Minister, who insists that we import more from abroad. Where energy is produced makes no difference to how much we consume. It can either be produced abroad or it can be produced here, with jobs, tax and lower emissions. Why on earth would he choose for it to be done abroad?

I was going to come to the right hon. Gentleman’s contribution later. He is also very likeable—he kindly said that of me and I appreciated it. He talked about “lunacy made flesh”; in the past, he has remarked that his own party’s policy of cancelling auctions for renewables has been lunacy. The truth is that we need both: we need oil and gas for many years to come, but we also need to build what comes next. I am afraid that point is entirely lost on those on his party’s Front Bench.

The right hon. Gentleman spoke about the US earlier and said that the UK was a price taker, not a price maker. The difference is that the US is responsible for a quarter of the world’s gas; we are not. By all standards, we have a minuscule amount of gas in the international markets. I am not saying that we should not be hugely grateful to have that gas in the seas around our country, but it is a minuscule amount compared with the global gas take. Therefore, we will always be a price taker, not a price maker.

There were a number of contributions that I will not have time to come to, but I want to pick up on the point made by the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas). I think he quoted me to myself in saying that energy policy is not a theoretical exercise. I agree with him, and today’s motion states that we need to look at the reality of where we are as a country and how we deliver our energy security in an uncertain world. That means having a mix of energy and it means moving faster to deliver the clean, home-grown power that is the very thing that can protect households right now and allow us to take responsibility for our environmental impact.

Conservative Members used to be great champions of the need to tackle the existential challenge to this planet that is the climate crisis, and there was great consensus in this place and across our politics on that. They have rowed back from that in a desperate attempt to chase Reform down the cul-de-sac of being anti-net zero, but in doing so they are turning their backs on the tens of thousands of jobs that will be created in the future.

I spoke earlier about the importance of learning the right lessons from this crisis. As long as we are dependent on the volatile global fossil fuel market, we will always be vulnerable to the kind of price shocks that we are seeing today. When faced with events like that, the public rightly expect us to work out the pathway that reduces that exposure and protects their household bills long into the future. Today, we have heard no plan whatsoever for doing that from the Conservatives; indeed, we have just heard a plan to double down on the very exposure that households are paying the price for.

The alternative path is to invest in the clean energy transition and recognise that oil and gas will play an important part in that, but also to invest as quickly as we can in renewables, carbon capture and hydrogen, and in decommissioning our offshore assets, which will produce many, many jobs for a long time to come. That is why we have attracted £90 billion of investment since we began this challenge. It is why we are tackling the gridlock in the national grid that has held back projects for so long. It is why we are creating thousands of jobs across the country. Every wind turbine that we switch on, every solar panel that we install and every bit of grid that we build that was neglected by the Conservatives for far too long helps us to reduce our dependency on fossil fuels and helps us to protect bills.

There is an important debate at the heart of this issue, and I regret that the motion tabled by the Opposition does not help us to have it. It ultimately comes down to a choice: do we want to continue on the rollercoaster of fossil fuels, or do we want to take control of our energy future with secure, home-grown energy, creating jobs, cutting bills and strengthening our national resilience? At a moment like this, this Government are clear what path we are on. It is the right choice for the British public. I commend to the House the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Question put (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the original words stand part of the Question.