PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Energy - 12 November 2025 (Commons/Commons Chamber)

I inform the House that Mr Speaker has selected amendment (b), in the name of the Prime Minister. I call the shadow Secretary of State to move the motion.

I beg to move,

That this House calls on the Government to introduce a plan for cheap power by cutting public expenditure to remove the ‘Carbon Tax’ (UK Emissions Trading Scheme) from electricity generation and end Renewable Obligation subsidies; notes that the UK has the highest industrial electricity prices in the world and the second highest domestic electricity prices; further notes that high power costs are holding back economic growth and making households poorer; believes that cheap energy is essential to enable economic growth, the expansion of the artificial intelligence sector and the electrification of heating and transport; further calls on the Government to stop the Allocation Round 7 auction, which will lock consumers into high energy bills for decades; also notes that three quarters of the UK’s energy needs are met by oil and gas, and recognises the vital contribution of the North Sea industry to the nation’s energy security, to skilled employment, and to the public finances through billions of pounds generated in tax revenue; notes that shutting down domestic oil and gas production would increase reliance on foreign imports with higher carbon emissions; and also calls on the Government to end the ban on new oil and gas licences and to scrap the Energy Profits Levy in order to maximise investment in that sector.

Our cheap power plan would cut electricity bills for everyone by 20%, and under it, we take a common-sense approach to British energy security by backing the North sea. The plan recognises that the biggest problem the country faces is the cost of our electricity. It is a problem for living standards, for industry, for artificial intelligence and for electrification. The focus of any Government should be making electricity less expensive, not more expensive, as Labour’s plans will. They should be about making electricity cheap. Under our cheap power plan, we would axe the carbon tax—which has gone up by 70% this year under Labour, pushing up everybody’s energy bills—and scrap the renewable obligation subsidies, which result in some wind farms get three times the market price for electricity.

I would like to start by thanking the Liberal Democrats, who came out this morning as backing the second part of our plan. I would also like to thank Reform, which appears to have copy and pasted the plan wholesale, and the Tony Blair Institute, which just two weeks ago said that we need to ditch Labour’s disastrous clean power plan in favour of a cheap power plan that takes off carbon taxes. That sounds familiar.

Even before my right hon. Friend came into the Department and asked for a whole-system energy cost analysis when I was the Energy Minister, our strategic objective was to be among the countries with the cheapest electricity prices in Europe by the 2030s. Does she have any idea why the Labour party has now dropped that as a strategic objective?

I thank my right hon. Friend, who is so knowledgeable on matters to do with energy. He is right: the only people who have not got the message are Labour Members, who are on the wrong side of this debate. The Secretary of State promised to cut bills by £300, but bills have gone up by £200 since the general election. I warned Labour Members over and over again that this would happen, but they did not listen. Now, under their plans, energy bills will keep on rising. They might not want to hear that from me, but they should listen to the trade unions, or to energy bosses, who came to Parliament just a few weeks ago and, in a bombshell moment, said that even if gas prices went to zero, bills would still rise because of Labour’s plans. I would hazard a guess that their view is shared by the Prime Minister, given that he tried to sack the Secretary of State at the last reshuffle. What does the Prime Minister know that these guys don’t, I wonder?

Our electricity is already some of the cleanest in the world, but it is also the most expensive. If we want people to adopt electric cars or electric home heating, we need to make electricity cheap. If we want artificial intelligence or industry to succeed in this country, we need to make electricity cheap. If we want people to have a better standard of life, so that they can spend more money on their families than on their bills, we need to make electricity cheap. Our cheap power plan would cut electricity bills by 20%, and not just for a favoured few, whereas Labour is pushing up bills for 22 million families to give handouts to 6 million. Our plan would cut bills for everybody—households and businesses. It would mean £165 off the average family’s bill, but even more if they spend more—and we could do it now.

When the right hon. Lady speaks about “our country”, does she include Northern Ireland? Would her motion extend to Northern Ireland? Unfortunately, we are subject to EU regulations, which on 1 January will introduce the carbon border adjustment mechanism; so in addition to the iniquitous Irish sea border, there will be a carbon border. Her party brought that about. What does she intend to do about it in the future?

The hon. and learned Gentleman is right to raise the plight of Northern Ireland. As he knows, there is a single energy market on the island of Ireland, but we need to cut electricity costs for everybody, right across these isles.

The first part of our plan would be to axe the carbon tax. The carbon tax on electricity pushes up the price of gas, wind, solar and nuclear, and it has gone up by 70% this year, thanks to the Government’s policies. We asked Labour Ministers about this, and they pretended not to know anything. We warned them not to put the tax up, and they said it was a Conservative scare story, but here we are. The Secretary of State blames gas for high bills, and I am sure the Minister will do the same in his speech, but a third of what we pay for gas is a carbon tax that the Government choose to impose. If the Secretary of State thinks that the price of gas is too high, he could take off the carbon tax and cut the price of gas by a third tomorrow. Guess what? That would make wind, solar and nuclear cheaper, too. Every time someone blames gas, it is like them complaining that their bath is overrunning when they will not turn off the taps. It is in the Government’s gift to axe the carbon tax. It has gone up because of them, so what are they waiting for?

Secondly, when the wind blows, there are wind farms in this country getting three times the market price for electricity, thanks to renewables obligation subsidies. That is clearly mad. The Secretary of State doubled those subsidies when he had his last chance to ruin the energy system. We closed the scheme in office, but it is time to scrap it.

Those two policies would cut people’s electricity bills by 20% now, in time for winter—and in time for us to be a world leader in AI, and to stop the crippling redundancies in the industry that are coming down the track. Instead of taking up those policies, the Labour party is doing something very different: it is intent on locking us into higher prices for longer.

The results of the Secretary of State’s botched wind auction will become clear in January. When the Government promised to cut bills, the cost of electricity was £72 a megawatt-hour. Last year, they locked in a fixed rate of £82 for offshore wind, and this year they are offering up to £117. These are fixed-rate, inflation-linked contracts, and they have extended the length of those contracts, so we will be paying these prices for 20 years. Essentially, they are signing us up to a 10% fixed-rate mortgage for 20 years, because they do not want to be on a 4% variable that moves around. The problem is this: if they sign up to higher prices than the current cost of electricity—this is before we include all the extra costs of wind, such as paying to turn it off when it is too windy, and paying for back-up when it is not windy enough—how will that cut bills? There will be higher prices for longer. Those are the prices that not only you and I will pay, Madam Deputy Speaker, but that our children will pay.

We saw this in the health service, with the private finance initiative; £13 billion of investment became £80 billion of public debt to pay back. Does my right hon. Friend worry that Labour seems to be following exactly the same principle by locking in these high future costs for our children and for the country?

That is exactly right, and I will come on to that point in a moment. Everyone remembers those contracts. My hon. Friend is absolutely correct; the Secretary of State is signing us up to this century’s PFI, but this time, the cost goes straight to our energy bills.

Would my right hon. Friend agree that the Government could at least be consistent in their management of contracts for difference and auctions? Does she share my bemusement at the fact that they have dismissed one way of providing about 7% of our grid requirements in fairly short order, which is accepting the interconnector between Morocco and the UK? That would bring reliable solar and wind-powered energy to the UK.

My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point about the reliability of electricity, which is what we need. We need electricity that will work in the winter when the sun is not shining, or when the wind is not blowing.

The question I would ask is this: why is the Labour party signing up to those high prices and locking all our constituents in for 20 years? It is because the Secretary of State is in the pocket of the wind developers. These are the highest prices for wind power that we have seen in a decade. [Interruption.] Ministers might shake their heads, but that is just a fact. It is much higher than the price of electricity right now, so why would they be buying more than ever before at the highest prices in a generation and fixing those prices for 20 years? I say this to Labour Members: if their constituents are saying to them—which I am sure they are—that their bills are too high now, what will they say to them in January, when it will be the Labour party that locks them all into even higher prices for longer?

Can the right hon. Member remind the House which party was in power when we reached cripplingly high energy prices that led to the cost of living crisis that we have today?

I remind the hon. Gentleman that when I was Energy Secretary, bills came down by £500. Under this Secretary of State, they have gone up by £200. What he needs to explain to his constituents is why signing up to higher prices on inflation-linked contracts for 20 years will fulfil the promise he made to those constituents to cut their bills by £300. I wish he could explain that.

It is worth Labour Members listening to this. From the Tony Blair Institute to the most respected energy economist, Sir Dieter Helm, everybody has pointed out this risk to them. It has not come to them without warning, the fact that they are signing up to prices much more expensive than gas for decades. They are on the wrong side of this debate and they are on the wrong side of consumers. Come January, when the results are published, everybody will be able to see that. And they will ask them: were you warned? Did you do your job in Parliament and speak up for me and my bills? Here is the problem. Their whole position is not driven by what is best for consumers; it is driven by ideology. Nowhere is that clearer than in their war on the North sea. When Scottish Renewables says that Labour’s policy on oil and gas is damaging the transition, surely even Labour Members must realise that they are on the wrong path.

My right hon. Friend is making a very able speech explaining why the clean power 2030 action plan is so ruinous for consumers. What she has not mentioned is that trying to connect up this very dispersed array of wind farms across the North sea requires an enormous amount of new infrastructure. We now know that the load factors are being reduced, so we will require 30% more wind turbines to create the same net zero effect. The wind farm investors themselves do not have to pay the full infrastructure costs for connecting all that up; it is the consumers who pick up the bill. So, there is another hidden subsidy for wind power that is not reflected in the guaranteed prices that are already being paid.

My hon. Friend is, as ever, an expert on this issue. If we look at the price cap and why it went up recently, it is those hidden costs. It was the balancing costs, paying wind farms to turn off when it is too windy. Next year, the network costs are about £100 per family. He is absolutely right that we have to look at all the extra costs that are coming down the track.

My right hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. I am really worried about my constituents who will face higher bills going into winter and beyond. The message is clear, is it not? This Labour Government have the power to get bills down, but they are making a choice not to do so.

My hon. Friend is exactly right. These are political choices and the Government should reflect on them.

When it comes to the North sea, we know that we will need oil and gas for decades to come—even the Climate Change Committee acknowledges that—yet thanks to the Government’s policies, we are paying Norway billions of pounds for gas from the exact same fields they are banning the British industry from drilling.

The right hon. Lady was kind enough to go through her plan with me. I will be honest: I think there is merit in discussing some of the proposals—[Interruption.] No, it is not what Opposition Members think. There is merit in discussing some of the proposals on a cross-party basis, and I am sure the Government will do that. The motion talks about the highest industrial energy prices in the world and the second-highest domestic energy prices, but that was true throughout the Conservatives’ time in office. They grew and became a massive problem. It is something I came across in this place in my time here. What is it about the situation that she found when she was Secretary of State, and her predecessors found, that made it so difficult to address those very high energy costs?

I thank the Chair of the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee for his time and willingness in going through the plan. Costs were not always so high; we actually had the lowest gas prices before the crisis, and we had lower electricity prices as well. What has happened is that we have switched a lot of costs into fixed costs, and those costs are increasing. It is something everybody is looking at, from the Tony Blair Institute to the trade unions—people right across the political spectrum. We need to address this issue because there is a huge amount on the line, whether that is growth or living standards. As I have said, AI is here in the near term; we cannot wait until the 2040s, which is the Government’s plan. Even then, it is not clear that their plan would bring down bills at all.

Is it not the truth that the reason energy bills are still so high is because we still produce a lot of electricity by burning gas? Burning gas, which is sold on the global market, keeps energy prices high. That is the main problem. We need to decouple electricity from gas prices, and particularly to get away from gas.

As the Chair of the Select Committee was happy to spend some time with me on this, I hope that the hon. Lady would be too, because she might learn something. Some 40% of our electricity prices are wholesale prices, while 60% are fixed costs, which covers things like building out the networks, which is going up phenomenally under the Government’s plans, as even Ofgem has pointed out; it also covers switching off wind farms when it gets too windy, which we spent £1 billion on this year, and will spend £8 billion on in 2030. I urge the hon. Lady to go and look at the numbers.

Our imports of foreign gas, which has four times the emissions of British gas, have soared because of what the Government are doing to the North sea; they were up 40% year on year at the beginning of this year. When the unions, the chief executive of Octopus and even the chair of Great British Energy have said that we should keep drilling in the North sea, do Government Members not wonder whether their Secretary of State has got this wrong?

The hon. Gentleman is shaking his head, but nothing I have said there is factually incorrect.

Will the right hon. Lady give way?

I will make a little more progress.

The truth is that, with the winter fuel payment cut, the promise to cut bills by £300, shutting down the North sea and supposedly achieving clean power by 2030, their Secretary of State has told Government Members to back policy after policy that unravel as soon as they meet reality. Time and again, he has made them look like fools.

There are hundreds of thousands of jobs on the line as well as billions of pounds in tax revenue. In fact, the Government would have to pocket less tax from working people at the Budget in two weeks’ time if they just backed the North sea. Never in my life have I seen a Government deliberately shut down a successful industry like this. It is economic vandalism based on student politics—no wonder their Minister got booed when he went to Aberdeen. The Government should scrap the windfall tax, end the mad ban on new oil and gas licences, and back our cheap power plan.

Will the right hon. Lady give way?

I will make a bit more progress, because other Members want to get in.

We heard a lot this morning about the different factions jostling to replace the Prime Minister, but I have an idea that they can all get behind. I say to the Blue Labour faction, “If you want to protect industry, you need cheaper electricity, so back our cheap power plan.” I say to the Blairites, “If you want to make the most of AI, you need cheaper electricity, so back our cheap power plan.” I say to the soft left, “If you care about lifting people out of poverty and improving living standards, then back our cheap power plan.”

Our plan will not just help 6 million households by jacking up the bills for 22 million, which is what the Government are doing—it is what the Minister will no doubt boast about when he talks about the warm home discount. Instead, it will cut electricity bills by 20% for everyone. Government Members should think about this: at the last energy price cap, the reason bills went up was not gas—Ofgem was very clear about that—but because of the political choices of this Secretary of State. He keeps making them defend the indefensible.

Speaking of the Secretary of State, where is he? Thousands of Aberdonians are losing their jobs—where is the Secretary of State? We are being locked into higher bills for two decades—where is the Secretary of State? We are missing out on an AI future—where is the Secretary of State? Since July he has bothered to come to the House to explain himself just once. He is a walking, talking cost of living crisis, and his mistakes will be with us for decades. If I have read the news correctly, he is apparently tucked away somewhere plotting his leadership bid. But let us be honest, the country was asked that question and it was very clear what it thought about the prospect of Prime Minister Miliband. He should stop plotting and start cutting people’s bills.

The final question I would ask Labour Members is this: are they not fed up? Are they not fed up of defending these policies that keep turning to dust as soon as they meet reality, of telling their constituents they will cut their bills when instead bills keep rising, and of being political mushrooms left in the dark and fed a pile of manure? We were all mushrooms once, Madam Deputy Speaker.

If this is going to be the one and only Parliament the Labour Members have, they should at least use it to do something worthwhile. They must stand up to the Secretary of State and stop him from locking their constituents into higher prices for longer. Put cheap energy first and vote for our motion tonight to back 200,000 jobs in the North sea, get back to growth and cut all our constituents’ electricity bills by 20%.

For the record, I have never been a fungi.

I beg to move amendment (b), to leave out from “House” to the end of the Question and insert:

“welcomes the extension of the Warm Homes Discount which this winter will provide £150 off energy bills for 2.7 million more families, taking the total households supported to around six million; regrets that the previous Government’s failed energy policy resulted in the worst cost of living crisis in generations; supports the creation of Great British Energy, to take back control of the UK’s energy system and provide energy security; notes that the Government is delivering the biggest nuclear building programme in decades, kickstarting Sizewell C nuclear power station, backing small modular reactors and investing in fusion power; further welcomes the consenting of enough clean power to provide power for more than 7.5 million homes across the country; also welcomes that the Government is bringing forward a plan for the North Sea’s energy future, and the creation of tens of thousands of jobs in nuclear, carbon capture, hydrogen and renewable industries as a result of the Government’s clean power mission; and recognises the Government is putting the UK back in the business of climate leadership, for energy security today and the protection of future generations to come.”

For too long the British people have paid the price for a broken energy system and an over-reliance on imported fossil fuels. When Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, the wholesale price of gas went spiralling, and as a result our typical energy bills nearly doubled in the space of a year. This was a direct result of successive Conservative Governments refusing to invest in clean, home-grown power while leaving our electricity grid to wither. In recent years, millions have struggled with fuel poverty, and many still face enormous debts today. Their failure was a disaster for family finances, business finances and public finances.

As we head into another winter, the effects of this are still being felt by the many, but we must be honest: this was neither unexpected nor unavoidable. Since the 1970s, half of the UK’s recessions have been caused by fossil fuel shock. The Conservatives had 14 years to do something about our energy security, but instead of making us stronger and more secure, their policy of complacency, dither and delay left us completely reliant on petrostates and dictators to keep the lights on.

I was just wondering whether the Minister remembers what else happened in 2022, around February time, that might have impacted gas prices.

I have mentioned the war in Ukraine in 2022, but this was not a crisis caused only by the war in Ukraine. It was a crisis caused by 14 years of under-investment—as I just said there, it was dither and delay.

The Minister talked about honesty, which is ironic given where he sits at the moment, in the Government of which he is a member. The Minister is better than this. He was talking specifically about renewables. Less than 7% of our electricity came from renewables in 2010, and by 2024 the figure was approximately 50%. To suggest that the Conservatives did not transform and improve our renewable energy is a falsehood, and because I know he is a better man than this, I am sure the Minister will now withdraw the allegation he made.

The Conservatives are turning their back on the policy they followed for 14 years, which the shadow Secretary of State supported for years.

Bills did not rise because we built too many solar farms or wind turbines. As the Conservatives’ motion helpfully points out, we are still dependent on oil and gas for three quarters of our energy. Bills rose precisely because they did not build enough clean, home-grown energy. They were not ambitious enough. They buried their heads in the sand and accepted the status quo.

Order. Before Matt Rodda makes his intervention, I want to be clear that the language we use also means that we do not accuse each other of falsehoods.

I commend the Minister for his speech; I hope my words will reflect the seriousness of the issue in front of us.

Does the Minister agree that, sadly, the last Government fell woefully short on building new solar in particular? I think the statistics are very much along the lines of more solar being approved in the first few weeks of the new Labour Government than was approved in the whole term of the last Conservative Government. Will the Minister update me on those figures and provide a little more light and less heat in this debate?

I think I am right in saying that the projects that we have consented since last July would power 7.5 million homes through solar. The work being undertaken by the Secretary of State on the solar sprint will see us go even further on solar.

Let me make some progress. A year and a half ago, fed up with the status quo that I was talking about a moment ago, the British people voted for change. From the moment when this Government came into power, we have been laser-focused on our mission to make the UK a clean-energy superpower; that is the only way to strengthen our energy security, to bring bills down, to create a whole new generation of good jobs in the energy industries of the future, and to build a more secure, prosperous Britain for generations to come.

The hon. Gentleman just said that the costs of building more wind and solar farms had not fed through to bills. But if we look at Ofgem’s last price cap, we see that paying wind farms to turn off when it was too windy made bills more expensive. We have spent £1 billion on that this year; by 2030, we are projected to spend £8 billion. That is an enormous added cost. Those are consented wind farms that cannot get into the grid.

If we had built the grid as we had planned to, we would not be paying those constraint payments—that is the whole point. Every wind turbine we put up, every solar panel we install and every piece of grid we construct are helping to reduce our reliance on gas.

Will the Minister give way?

Allow me to make some progress.

In just 18 months, we have made the biggest investment in clean, home-grown energy in British history, with more than £60 billion of Government funding and a further £50 billion of private investment. As I said, we have consented enough clean power for the equivalent of 7.5 million homes, including nine new solar farms and offshore wind farms in the Irish sea and the English channel.

We have started building the next generation of nuclear power, including Sizewell C power station in Suffolk. We have set up Great British Energy, our publicly owned energy company that the Conservatives still oppose. That is already installing solar panels on hundreds of schools and hospitals across the UK, so that money saved on energy bills can go back into key services. We have kick-started Britain’s carbon capture and hydrogen industries as we lead the way on the technologies of the future. That is the immediate difference that this Labour Government have made to our communities.

I suggest that the Minister does not crow too much about GB Energy, given that at the Scottish Affairs Committee the Scottish Secretary let the cat out of the bag about the 1,000 jobs—“Well, we never really meant 1,000 jobs at GB Energy, just maybe 1,000 jobs somewhere, some time.”

When will Labour lower people’s energy bills by £300? It sounds to me as if that is to be at some indeterminate point in the future. The electorate could rightly and justifiably have thought that Labour meant some time in the immediate future.

We have committed and remain committed to the reduction in energy bills laid out by the Secretary of State. The Scottish National party can oppose GB Energy as much as it wants, but the company will deliver good, high-quality jobs in Scotland. On what the hon. Gentleman said about the Secretary of State, I should say that jobs are being and will be created by GB Energy right across the supply chain.

Robert Gordon University estimates that 90% of the UK’s oil and gas workforce have skills with medium or high transferability to the offshore renewables sector, making them well positioned for the transition. If the SNP does not want those jobs in Scotland, can the Minister please send them to Cornwall?

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I will carry on arguing for jobs across the UK, but particularly in Scotland and not all in Cornwall.

I will make some progress on my speech. Even in the face of rapid progress across the country, some, including many on the Opposition Benches, still cling to the status quo of stagnation and decline. Those who suggest that we should simply generate more electricity and generate more electricity with gas, leaving billpayers across Britain—

Will the Minister give way on that point?

If she will allow me to make progress, I will allow her to intervene. Those would leave billpayers across Britain to deal with the consequences. The reality is, as the shadow Secretary of State must know, that with our ageing gas fleet, half of which is more than 20 years old, in any scenario we would need to invest in rebuilding our power system. The truth is that replacing old gas plants with new ones would be significantly more expensive, and those costs would be met by consumers while also leaving us more exposed than ever to the global price of fossil fuels, over which we have no control.

Will the Minister give way?

The hon. Gentleman will allow me to make some progress.

The data shows that solar and onshore wind remain the cheapest power sources to build and operate in this country. When faced with a choice between investing in new, expensive gas and increasing our reliance on unstable fossil fuel markets, or the alternative of clean, home-grown energy controlled by Britain, creating jobs for Britain, bringing investment to Britain and powering Britain, really, there is no choice at all.

The Minister just referred to the oil and gas sector as “the status quo” or something that we should be moving away from. Does he also mean the 100,000 jobs supported by that sector, the millions in investment and the billions that we get in revenue from that sector? Which part of that does he not support and which part of that does he not want to protect while we transition to new energies? It sounds to me like he wants to shut it down tomorrow. Those are my constituents, the local economy in my area and energy security for the country. He seems to be very willing to get rid of them.

The hon. Lady makes a timely intervention because I am about to address all those points in this section of the speech.

Nowhere is the transition more important than in the North sea. For decades, its workers, businesses and communities have helped power our country and our world, using all their skill to tackle mammoth engineering challenges in some of the most extreme conditions on the planet. There will continue to be a role for oil and gas, and the workforce will continue to play its part for decades to come, but we are also following the evidence. The reality is that oil and gas production has been falling for decades, by around 75% between 1999 and 2024. The North sea oil and gas industry has lost around a third of its direct workforce in the last decade; that is, 70,000 jobs lost during the time in which the Conservative party was in government, when it had no plan to deal with the transition.

We face a choice: do we continue to let that happen, do we abandon entire communities with no plan for the future, or do we act, creating new skilled jobs and helping our workforce to take advantage of the opportunities that clean energy brings? This Government have chosen to act.

The Minister will let me explain why, in the Alice in Wonderland world of the Government’s net zero policies, it is right to import liquefied natural gas, which for some reason does not count in our carbon footprint, instead of producing our own gas, which would count but which would be cheaper, far easier and more carbon-efficient to produce in our own country. Why are the Government pursuing that ludicrous policy, which is self-harming the economy, making our trade deficit worse and losing tax revenues for the Government because we are not exploiting our natural resources?

We have been net importers of oil and gas since 2004. The Conservatives are making the precise point for us. We want to reduce the reliance on imports and we want to reduce the reliance on oil and gas by building clean, home-grown energy here in Britain.

Will the Minister give way on that point?

One moment—the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to make progress.

We have been investing billions in carbon capture, hydrogen and offshore wind. We are also providing up to £20 million of funding from the UK and Scottish Governments to ensure that the existing workforce benefits from new opportunities in new industries, including through the oil and gas transition training fund, which provides thousands more offshore workers with bespoke careers advice and training.

My hon. Friend references Scotland. I was at COP26 in Glasgow the last time we had a Conservative Prime Minister who showed real climate leadership on the global stage, yet we have now seen the sad spectacle—and we will see more of it later today—of a party that had a distinguished tradition of environmental protection and climate change reality running away to the Reform vote, which is an empty one. Does the Minister agree with the former Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, who said:

“Certainly in my party, it’s all about bashing the green agenda, and personally I don’t think we’ll get elected on that. I didn’t see us soaring in the polls as a result of saying what rubbish net zero is. I didn’t see a massive leap in support for the Conservatives”?

My hon. Friend makes a pertinent and interesting point.

It is interesting to see this turnaround by the Conservatives. I am struck by something the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie) said before:

“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 have a page of quotes here from when he backed net zero and the policy of this Government. His former leader, Theresa May, whom I think he was Parliamentary Private Secretary for, said:

“To row back now would be a catastrophic mistake…the science remains the same…We owe it to our children and grandchildren to ensure we protect the planet for their futures, and that means giving business the reassurance it needs to find the solutions for the very grave challenges we face.”

By turning their back on all this, Conservative Members have built a coalition that includes businesses and members of their own party who are now turning against their new policy on clean energy.

As we are trading quotes, we now learn that energy bills are set to rise by hundreds of pounds because of the Government’s green levies. That is not just my opinion; it is the evidence of Centrica, of Octopus Energy and of EDF. Is the Minister seriously coming to this Chamber and saying that some of the biggest gas and electricity suppliers to the country are wrong?

I am coming to this Chamber and saying that we need to continue to invest in building out the grid. That is what that levy pays for, and those companies that the right hon. Lady has mentioned know that that is what it pays for. If we fail to do it, it will lead to higher bills for consumers across the country.

As someone who has actually worked in this industry, I appreciate a lot of what the Minister is saying. I have also noticed the gap in the narrative coming from the Opposition, because it was in 2017 that Theresa May’s Government took the decision to close the gas storage facilities that would have helped with a lot of the pressures we have been talking about. Does my hon. Friend agree that this requires long-term vision, and that perhaps the Conservatives were not as good at this as they are now claiming to have been?

That really gets to the heart of the point, which is that the Conservatives are abandoning their long-term commitment, which was in the national interest and on which we had consensus across this Chamber. They are abandoning the national interest in favour of what they think is their short-term political interest.

I would like to make some progress on what I was saying about the North sea. We are working with industry and the Scottish Government to extend the energy skills passport, making it easier and quicker for oil and gas workers to bring their expertise into new sectors. In the coming weeks, we will also publish a response to our North sea energy future consultation, setting out the framework for building a world-leading offshore clean energy industry in the North sea.

The Minister’s constituents, like mine, are worried about their electricity prices right now—not in 10 years’ time or 20 years’ time, but right now. They are paying the highest electricity prices, bar one, in the world and the industries and businesses on which they rely are paying the highest electricity prices. A third of the wholesale price of electricity is the carbon tax. There is a solution here, is there not? It is to reduce this ridiculous carbon levy.

The other solution is that we get off gas—that we move away from gas on to clean power. I would say to the right hon. Gentleman that the warm home discount, which is giving support to one in six households across the country this winter, is providing £150 of support—[Interruption.] The right hon. Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho) dismisses that, but it is essential support for families and the most vulnerable people in our country who need it.

We must not lose sight of the fact that clean energy is the economic opportunity of this century. Since July 2024, the confidence instilled by our clean energy mission has seen £50 billion of private investment announced for clean energy, creating jobs, strengthening supply chains and rejuvenating industrial communities across the country. Our carbon capture clusters will support over 35,000 highly skilled jobs in Merseyside, Teesside, the Humber and Aberdeenshire, including 1,000 apprenticeships. Sizewell C will support 10,000 jobs at peak construction. Our small modular reactor programme, for which Rolls-Royce is the preferred bidder, will support 3,000 jobs in Northern Ireland, and £100 million has gone to Belfast harbour to support two new major wind farms in the Irish sea, creating more than 300 jobs. In East Anglia, future offshore wind projects are supporting another 100 jobs. In Carrington in Greater Manchester—

Order. The Minister will be aware that many people hope to contribute, so I hope he will come to a conclusion shortly.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. With that in mind, I might not take further interventions from hon. Members.

In Carrington in Greater Manchester, there will be 200 jobs in the region—I could go on. All those jobs are what the Conservatives are turning their backs on—the new clean jobs of the future.

While we sprint towards our clean energy goals, we are also doing everything we can to protect those who have borne the brunt of this crisis. As I said, the warm home discount is providing support to an extra 3 million households this winter. We are working with Ofgem to relieve the burden of energy debt that many consumers face. To support British industry, from next year 500 of our most energy-intensive businesses will get a cut to their bills, with thousands more firms getting discounts in 2027.

The Minister will know that one of the most energy-intensive industries in the country is the ceramics sector, which cannot go off gas because the technology simply does not exist to change the kilns from gas to electric—that process cannot happen. Under the Conservatives, the sector was excluded from the current supercharger scheme. Will the Government please consider—we beg again—extending the current supercharger scheme to include the ceramics sector, so that we can bring down the electrical costs that it incurs while not being able to look at the gas prices? Thousands of jobs are on the line and places like Stoke-on-Trent need this help. They need it now, and we would be most grateful for anything the Government can do.

I know my hon. Friend is a champion for that industry and for his constituents. I will pass that on to colleagues in the Department for Business and Trade, who will look at it.

The previous Government stood idly by as jobs went overseas, but we will not. Through our industrial strategy, we are taking action to reduce industrial electricity prices. We are introducing the British industrial competitiveness scheme from 2027, which will reduce electricity bills by up to 25% for over 7,000 eligible British businesses.

If we want to create new good jobs and revitalise our industrial regions, we must seize the opportunity to make Britain a world leader in clean energy. This is the economic opportunity of the century. The Conservatives seem to want to double down on their record of failure. Do they not want to remember that their failed energy policy caused the worst cost of living crisis in memory for British families? Do they not want to recognise that their plans would mean jobs, investment and growth going to other countries, rather than into our communities? Do they not realise that their plans undermine the very confidence that British businesses now have in the energy transition? Now is not the time to turn to old solutions that have utterly failed, but to seize the incredible opportunities ahead of us. Now is the time to build our clean energy future.

Order. Before I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, to ensure that most people can get in, Back Benchers will be on a four-minute speaking limit.

When this country is at its best, we rise together to face challenges and threats. We roll up our sleeves and deploy ingenuity and entrepreneurial spirit to meet those threats and challenges head on. That is what we need now: a collective patriotic endeavour to tackle climate change, cut bills and ensure that our economy is based on cleaner and cheaper British energy sources that will not run out and that are immune from the whims of foreign dictators—what is not to like? Sadly, there are colleagues in this House who do not like that, who are against that patriotic endeavour to secure the future for our children and grandchildren. It is not for me to speculate on their motives, but for the security of our country and the good of our future, we certainly need to ensure that those people never get anywhere near power.

Let’s start with the one part of this motion that we can all agree on: energy bills are far too high. The typical family has to pay £60 a month more than it did five years ago. British businesses still face some of the highest electricity prices in the OECD. That is bad for the cost of living, bad for business and bad for economic growth, so we must bring energy bills down. The simple question is, how?

The hon. Member is making a spirited speech that gets to the heart of what we are all trying to address. There are fiscal levers that we can pull to ensure that we bring down bills. Does he share my sense of disbelief about the irony in the Conservatives’ earlier motion suggesting that there should be no further tax rises of any kind while they are simultaneously willing to propose a set of multibillion-pound measures to scrap all those levies?

Order. Back-Bench speeches are already limited to four minutes. If interventions are long, the limit will drop further. Please be mindful of that.

I will limit the number of interventions that I take, Madam Deputy Speaker.

The Conservative party had a record of being, or at least presented itself as, the party of sound money. This appears to be a decision to move away from that and instead to chase after our permanently absent colleagues.

The cost of energy bills for the average household will be £1,775 this year. Charities indicate that energy companies are owed £4.4 billion by UK households. Does the hon. Gentleman fear, as I do, that the vulnerable and needy will be unable to heat their houses this winter because of the money that they owe? They cannot take on any more debt.

Fuel poverty is a reality and a stain on our country. The hon. Gentleman is right to raise it on behalf of his community.

Let us get to the heart of this debate. We must bring energy bills down, and the question is how. I am afraid that the plan put forward by the Conservatives is nothing more than a mirage. They say that we should cut bills by removing the renewable obligation levy—that is great. As always, we are ahead of them and have set out our plan to do just that, but the key difference is that our plan is properly funded through a windfall tax on the extra payments that the big banks are getting as a result of quantitative easing. The plan in this motion is funded by the Conservative hand wave—a classic these days—of saying, “We’ll just cut spending.” What happened to the Conservative party being the party of sound money?

I will let the hon. Gentleman explain.

In the previous debate, we talked about tax, and the funding that the hon. Gentleman mentions was also being used to deal with the tax burden on the high street. Will he explain the Liberal Democrat policy? How would they levy these taxes on social media giants and big banks, and where would that money go? It seems as if they are spending it twice in one afternoon.

That is not the case. I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for mentioning two of the sources of the additional income that we would raise. It is all very well just to blandly say, “We will get the money from somewhere,” but not to say where. The Liberal Democrats have said where we will find the money. His party has done nothing of the sort. The people who support sound money and wise economics are leaving his party in droves, and many of them are coming to the Liberal Democrats.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

I will not because we need to let other people speak later.

Given the Conservatives’ record in government and the complete lack of detail about which spending they would cut, it is very rich that they are asking us for details—we have given some. Once upon a time, the Conservatives did not believe in the magic money tree, but today their plans seem to rest entirely on its fictional bounty. The only other part of their plan that would supposedly bring down bills is the scrapping of the current auction of new renewable projects altogether.

Let us remember what that would actually mean. It would cut between £11 billion and £15 billion of private investment in cheap, clean power.

It is not cheap!

The right hon. Lady says that it is not cheap. Over the lifetime of the projects, yes, it is cheap. Does the Conservative party not understand that the up-front costs are one thing, but the input costs over time—over 20 years—are as cheap as chips? This is basic economics, and I struggle to comprehend how a party that was in government for so many years has lost touch with reality so very quickly.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

I will not.

That would be a disaster for our economy, our communities and our young people. Far from bringing down energy bills, it would make us even more reliant on imported fossil fuels, which are expensive. Energy bills skyrocketed in the past few years because of Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. That shows what a truly terrible idea this is. What happened to the Conservative party being the party of national security? That idea is long gone, too, alongside its commitment to sound money. Putin would profit, while British families and pensioners struggle.

The whole argument being put forward by the Conservative party, and by our habitually absent colleagues on the fourth row back, is that bills are too high because we are investing too much in renewable power. They say that we should stop investing, scrap our climate commitments, and bills will magically come down, but it is just not true. It is not the price of renewables that is pushing up bills; generating electricity from solar or wind is now significantly cheaper than gas, even when we factor in extra costs for back-up power when the wind is not blowing and the sun is not shining. However, people are not seeing the benefit of cheap renewable power, because wholesale electricity prices are still tied to the price of gas, even though half of all our electricity now comes from renewables, compared with just 30% from gas. That is because the wholesale price is set by the most expensive fuel in the mix, which in the UK is almost always gas. That is not the case in some other countries in Europe such as Spain and France.

As this is supposed to be a debate, will the hon. Gentleman give way?

The right hon. Gentleman is being very persistent—go for it.

One of the hon. Gentleman’s fantastical suggestions is that he has a way of breaking the link between gas and electricity prices. I do not know which model he wants to follow—that of China, or perhaps a Korean model—but will he please explain how exactly we do that? When I was the Energy Minister, I looked to see whether that could be done, and we could not find a way of making it work. I am really interested to see the Liberal Democrats’ detailed work, and for them to explain it to the House.

That the right hon. Gentleman was the Energy Minister makes me question the selection standards of the previous Prime Minister. How far do we need to look? The channel is not that wide. Look at France and Spain. France has nuclear, and Spain has renewable energy—[Interruption.] If people stop chuntering, I will explain. In Spain and France there is no reliance on gas, partly because of nuclear in France, and in Spain it is down not to nuclear but entirely to renewables. If the right hon. Gentleman had looked not very far away at the other side of the Bay of Biscay down in Spain, he would see that it is entirely possible. How do we decouple ourselves from reliance on gas? It is blindingly obvious: do not make it so that we have to rely on gas, and invest in renewables—it is so obvious that it is almost beyond belief that people who held that brief not long ago do not get it. Investing in cheap renewables, and making sure that people see the benefit in their bills—that is the answer.

The Conservative’s plan would rip up our crucial national commitment on climate change. I will not repeat quotations from previous Prime Ministers such as Baroness May of Maidenhead and Boris Johnson—Boris Johnson, now a moderate and a progressive by comparison, which is utterly stunning. It is distressing that the Conservative party has left behind traditional voters who do care about the environment and our economy.

Communities such as mine bear the brunt of the impact of climate change, as well as farmers whose businesses are blighted by ever-lengthening droughts and ever more severe floods. Communities such as Kendal, Burneside, Staveley, Appleby, and Grasmere are experiencing appalling flood damage. In just three weeks, we will note the 10th anniversary of Storm Desmond, which did hundreds of millions of pounds-worth of damage to our communities, and devastated lives, homes and communities. An apparently once-in-200-years event happened only a few years after two once-in-100-years events. It is obvious that things are changing; do not dare to tell Cumbrians that climate change is not a clear and present danger.

Fuel poverty is worse in our area too, and 27% of our housing stock was built before 1900. Those homes have solid walls, and are hard to insulate and expensive to heat. North Westmorland has the least energy-efficient housing in the whole of England, with 17% of homes classed as either F or G, but we are well placed to provide the solutions. Our coastal waters hold huge amounts of latent energy, yet like the rest of the UK they are largely untapped for tidal power. Britain has the second highest tidal range on the planet after Canada, and we are making use of nearly none of it—what an absolute waste.

On that point, will the hon. Gentleman give way?

I will not.

Just think about all the jobs that could be created in Cumbria if we did that, all the cheap energy that we could generate and all the bills that we could slash. We have the big scale answers in our community, as well as the small scale ones. The Coniston hydro scheme has been hugely successful, but its future could be secured and the energy bills of the local community drastically reduced if only the Government would deliver the P441 code modification to make local energy markets a reality for us in the lakes, and across the United Kingdom, in every community. Local energy markets would open the floodgates—pun intended—for local schemes in every community, in every constituency represented in this House and beyond, so that households and businesses benefit from cheaper, cleaner energy created by people they know.

What would a real plan to cut energy bills, while continuing the UK’s leadership on climate change, look like? We have set it out in our amendment on the Order Paper: do not slash investment in cheap, clean renewables, but increase it, as we Liberal Democrats did when we were in government. We quadrupled the amount of renewable power generated between 2010 and 2015. We also say: make homes warmer and cheaper to heat with an emergency upgrade programme; and work with the European Union to trade energy more efficiently, cutting costs and reducing reliance on gas. In addition, we must end those expensive, old renewable obligation contracts from 20 years ago that impose levies on people’s bills and stop them seeing the benefits of cheap renewables, and move them on to cheaper contracts for difference, pioneered by the Liberal Democrats, to bring down prices and drive investment at the same time. Now, that is a real plan that treats the British people with respect, by presenting actual solutions, rather than vacuous soundbites.

In closing, the crushing poverty that millions endure as a result of eye-watering energy bills is real, and it is an outrage. The threat to our world and to our children’s future from climate change is real, and it is an outrage. Loving our neighbour means having a real and practical plan to tackle both. The motion does not provide that, but I am determined that we will.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to discuss energy and climate change, although I am still reeling from the speech made by the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho). By my count, she talked more about mushrooms than about climate change.

The debate comes just weeks after one of the most deadly storms on record caused such destruction in Jamaica. The Imperial college storm model concluded that the storm was appreciably stronger and more dangerous because of climate change. We are debating this motion in the shadow of the UN Secretary General’s comment that humanity has failed to keep global heating to below 1.5°C. With that backdrop, it is sad to see such a defeatist motion put forward by the Conservative party

That said, perhaps it is apt that we are debating the subject on an Opposition day, because the Conservative motion before us opposes many of the things that the party did in government. The Conservatives set up the UK emissions trading scheme in 2021, but now they want to scrap it. They introduced the levy on the oil and gas sector, but now they want to scrap that. The Climate Change Act 2008 was a Labour achievement that had cross-party support for many years, but now, most shockingly of all, the Conservatives want to scrap it.

The Conservatives also privatised the national grid. We were warned at the time, in 1989, that that would not lead to massive investment from the private sector, and we are now living with the consequences of that lack of investment over something like 40 years. Does my hon. Friend agree that that Conservative failure is another reason why we face such high energy bills?

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend, and I will go on to talk more about why investment now is good for us, in both the short term and the long term.

We have a genuinely sad state of affairs. There have been Conservatives who have taken the climate very seriously, from Lord Deben, with his leadership of the Climate Change Committee, to the former Prime Minister Baroness May. I am even old enough to remember Lord Cameron, then Leader of the Opposition, imploring people to vote blue to go green. I know I do not look that old. The message is clear that the Conservative party is no longer interested in that, and I will address the rest of my speech to those in this place who are still serious about reducing emissions, protecting the planet and doing what is right for the next generation.

Speaking of screeching U-turns, when the hon. Gentleman was campaigning for last year’s election, he told his potential constituents that he would lower their energy bills by £300. What is he saying to them now?

As I will go on to say, I am telling them that investing in a decarbonisation scheme and having warm homes is exactly the way that we get bills down. Just last week, I met Tina in Hatfield. Tina is a council house resident, and she benefited from the social housing decarbonisation scheme. Her home was retrofitted last year, with new insulation, triple glazing and a host of other improvements, and she is thrilled with the results. She told me, most importantly of all, that last winter, her monthly energy bill fell from £140 to £67 a month.

Tina’s experience proves that we can cut emissions and cut costs. It also proves that there is not a fight between fighting climate change and providing support with the cost of living; the two can and must work together. That is precisely why our Labour Government have expanded the social housing decarbonisation scheme, and why I am proud that funding for wave 3 will see more than 600 council homes in Welwyn Hatfield brought up to energy performance certificate rating C by 2028.

The hon. Gentleman is being most generous in giving way. Under the last Conservative Government, we went from 7% to nearly 50% renewables. We cut emissions more than any other major economy on earth, but as has been said, we also saw electricity prices go very high. When I was the Minister responsible for net zero, we were looking at heat, transport and industry, and the fundamental way of decarbonising each of those is through electricity. How can we decarbonise them if we keep driving electricity prices ever higher? I admire the hon. Gentleman’s ideological fervour, but we have to get prices down if we are to take a balanced approach that looks after families and decarbonisation.

I recognise that improvements were made by the last Government, but if the right hon. Gentleman is listening carefully—I am sure he is—he will hear that that is the theme of my speech, and of comments from Government Members. It is so sad to see the Conservative party walk away from the Climate Acts and from being a party that takes these issues seriously. That is the sad thing, and that is what matters.

Hundreds more families in my constituency are about to enjoy the same experience as Tina, meaning that they can live in warmer homes and have dramatically lower energy bills. Upgrading our homes is the right priority; it is yielding results, and will continue to do so, but it will take time to scale that up across the country. The same is true of our investment in new nuclear power, the continued growth of all forms of renewables, and mandating that from 2027, every new home must have solar panels on the roof.

In parallel, the Government are right to recognise the urgency of now. Energy bills are down from their peak, but they are still significantly higher than before Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, so it is absolutely right that we have targeted plans to ease the pressure on families on lower incomes this winter through the warm home discount scheme, which will reach 2.7 million families across the country and around 11,000 families in Welwyn Hatfield.

The Conservative motion reflects the sad journey of the Conservative party. At best, they are ignoring climate change; at worst, they are playing to the climate sceptics, who might be plentiful on Elon Musk’s X, but there are very few of them in this country or, I suspect, in the constituencies of Conservative Members. In contrast, this Labour Government are absolutely right to invest in warm homes, to back renewable energy and to declare that tackling climate change is, and will remain, a national priority.

I am delighted to speak in this debate, because this is such an important topic for many of my constituents across South Shropshire. Both individuals and businesses need energy prices to come down—the cost is not sustainable, and it is on the wrong trajectory—and we need to be honest with the British people about the route for achieving that.

The Leader of the Opposition has clearly said that the net zero target is not achievable. We are being honest in this discussion. I believe that over the coming few years, all Members in this House will see that the target is not achievable, and it will be reversed. We are trying to bluff the British people—I think that is the word I would use—and make them believe that if we offset our carbon emissions and bring them down that way, it is okay to import all our energy. We have many more reserves that we can use before we need to bring in any energy from overseas; we can pull the reserves out of our ground and use them. There is a lot more that we can do on that.

Members may say, “We need to look at solar.” Let us look at rare earth metals, which I have spoken about several times in the Chamber. There are 17 rare earth metals, 90% of which are processed in or through China, which literally uses a scorched earth policy to pull them out of the ground.

The hon. and gallant Member has mentioned rare earth metals. The Government will hopefully come out with their critical minerals strategy before the end of the year. We have vast resources of critical minerals in the United Kingdom; why did the previous Government not invest, so that we are not reliant on China?

The hon. Member raises a very interesting point. China looked at this issue 30 years ago; when I went over to Australia about five years ago, the Australians were looking at it, and the US was looking at it, too. Every country outside of China has left this way too late. Putting in place a critical minerals strategy now is way too late, but we still need one in place. We need to look at this issue. All the magnets that we use in this country, including for MRI scans, require rare earth metals. That strategy should be in place today. We got that wrong—I am happy to admit that we did not get our rare earth metals strategy right—and it is costing us. Everybody is waking up to the need for that strategy, but we cannot say, “Let’s just pull those metals in from China; we are very happy for them to offset our carbon emissions over there.”

I also want to look at energy from a defence perspective. We need energy to ensure that we have strong defence. Recently, the Government committed to the NATO standard, which is to spend 3.5% of GDP on defence and 1.5% of GDP on defence-related areas. We should focus on article 3 of NATO—internal defence—and that 1.5% of defence-related spending should be focused on a couple of things, namely energy security and food security. I am a member of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, and discussions are ongoing about how that money should be used. If our tanks do not have any fuel to get where they need to go, they cannot fight; that is before we even look at ammunition and things like that. Rather than saying, “We have to go faster on renewables,” we should be having the bigger discussion about national resilience and energy security. The world is the most unstable it has been since the second world war. We need something in place now, and we need to move to what is sustainable. Defence is key to that.

I have mentioned food security. Outside of Much Wenlock in my constituency, which has just been voted the happiest place to live in Shropshire—it is a lovely place to live—there are 600 acres of prime agricultural land that can grow food, and a beautiful view that is one of the best in the country. There is an application to replace it with 600 acres of solar panels. I have not found one person in the constituency who wants to turn that land into a site for solar energy; it is only the landowner who wants to. If we put solar panels all over it, as part of the roll-out of solar at speed—the Minister has mentioned that the Government are going quicker—we will be doing so with no regard for local people and what they want for their communities. This is really detrimental; the discussion about net zero is getting killed because local communities are being overridden.

I have talked about the speed of solar, and about defence and food security, but we also need to look at homes that are off the grid. In South Shropshire, only 42% of homes are on gas mains; many are off the grid. I think the average across the country is about 73%. Some of the Government’s plans that the Minister has set out are not working for a lot of off-grid communities. There are a lot of old homes in South Shropshire, many of them built pre-1945, that are too expensive to retrofit.

Order.

I will conclude with that. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Clearly, this country faces an affordability crisis. People cannot afford their energy bills or their housing bills, and that means more than just not being able to pay the bills—it means that they are losing faith in us in this place, because democracy is no longer delivering for them. We Labour Members want cleaner and cheaper energy, to ensure that people can afford their bills and do have faith in us, but there is another reason. The decisions we make now in this place will live on for decades—for generation after generation. The carbon we emit between now and 2050 will live, not just with us, but with our great-grandchildren and their grandchildren. It is so important that we get this right at this moment.

The motion tabled by the Conservative party backs expanding North sea oil and gas. That would not make our energy cheaper, and perhaps more importantly, it would not make us more secure. The Conservatives talk about a cheap power plan. They were in power for 14 years. We had the most expensive energy bills in the G7, with the highest inflation, because they left us dependent on natural gas—and what do we see today? Exactly the same plan all over again. Natural gas is setting our energy price for 98% of the time. It drove 80% of the increase in the wholesale cost, with 50% of the wholesale cost driving the increase in energy prices. How on earth can the Opposition today want us to relive and repeat those mistakes over and over again?

Let us talk about North sea oil and gas in particular. Taking all of it out, as the Opposition are proposing, would leave five years-worth of supply—and then what will we do? What will we invest in then? We will be dependent on natural gas over and over again. That is exactly why we invest in the future. Moreover, the North sea gas bill is twice as expensive as those in the middle east, so it does not even make economic sense.

Projections show that if we fully utilised the oil and gas in the North sea we could cover half our energy needs up to 2050, so there is a lot more in there than five years-worth, but even if it were true that there was only five years-worth, why would we be increasing our imports to cover it? Why would we not be using what we have, given that we will be a net importer for years to come in any event? Why are we closing down the North sea if, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, it will all be gone in any case? It makes no sense.

The gasfields that the hon. Lady is talking about are geologically unstable, and it is not even clear whether we can get them out. Only 20% of the reserves of the gasfields that we knew of in 1997 are left—and when we get to 2050, what will we do then? That is precisely why this Government are investing in clean, home-grown energy that is cheaper and more secure for the future, and we know that is the case because the Conservatives used to believe it too. You used to believe in net zero. You used to believe in the Climate Change Act. Look at how much you have changed. It is a deep shame.

Order. I have not changed; I am still here.

I do apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Our plan, which used to be shared across the House, is precisely to invest in cleaner, cheaper energy for all, because we know that wind and solar are 60% cheaper than natural gas. We know that because, after the capital costs, wind and solar are free. As for the network costs, we need to balance them in any case, and renew our grid. That too was an approach that we shared across the House, and it is a shame to see where we are.

Beyond investing in clean energy, which is cheaper, we are also investing in home insulation so that people use less energy at home and bills are lower for families, and they do have faith in us in this place. On top of that, we are redistributing the costs through the warm home discount and the standing charge. I am so glad that the living standards coalition put that forward.

National Energy Action estimates that Stoke-on-Trent is No. 1 in the country for fuel poverty. According to its analysis, even if we reduce energy bills, as we will do, most of the energy will simply disappear through leaky windows, draughty doors and uninsulated homes. Does my hon. Friend accept, agree and acknowledge that there must be a twin-track approach, and that not only must we bring down the overall cost of energy, but houses must use less energy so that we are cleaner, greener and cheaper?

The House will be shocked to hear that I do agree. This is about getting bills down for families, which is so important. When homes are insulated, that reduces energy demand as well, which means that our transition is easier and cheaper. When we build and insulate homes, that is not just good for bills, it is not just good for people, but it is good for jobs as well—good non-graduate jobs, of which there are too few in our move to a post-industrial economy.

Most important of all, however, is getting carbon down for good. The decisions that we make now, and the carbon that we emit, will live with us for ever. Either we, in this place and across the country, will make these innovations and live up to our duty to this generation and those in the future—either we will stop emitting carbon, which will mean cheaper and cleaner energy, and our children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren will be thankful to us—or we will not. This is the moment for us to rise to. This is why we are investing in that cheaper, cleaner energy—yes, so that it gets bills down for good, but also to ensure that we live up to the promise we make to the generations to come.

No industrialised country has ever been able to succeed without cheap, abundant energy. As my right hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho) so rightly says, the Government must prioritise delivering cheap, abundant energy for households across the country. The plan that she laid out last month would knock nearly 20% off the average household energy bill by cutting the disastrous taxes that this Government continue to defend.

Not only do this Government plan to keep hitting families with extra taxes to fund their ideological commitment to unreliable and expensive energy sources, but they plan to make the situation even worse by shutting down energy production in this country and making us even more reliant on imports from abroad. Businesses can feel it: far too many are being forced to cut back or close their doors altogether, because the cost of doing business is simply too high. That means that pubs, nursing homes and family farms are all forced to make painful decisions because of this Government.

For industrial businesses, it is even worse. Some of the best well-paid jobs of the 21st century—in high-skilled manufacturing or in AI—rely on access to cheap energy. Those are jobs that can revitalise communities and enable people to build successful lives for themselves. Our competitors around the world understand that, but this Government do not. We need people to start new industrial businesses here, but why would anybody do so when the Government are only going to make their lives harder through their commitment to sky-high bills and intermittent, unreliable forms of energy?

Those on the Government Benches often talk of sustainability, but there is nothing sustainable about this situation. People across the country can feel it in their energy bills each and every month. Thanks to rising bills, many families simply do not have enough money left at the end of the month to save for a home, plan a holiday, or even send their children on a school trip.

This January, Centrica said this regarding Rough, the largest gas storage facility in the UK:

“If Rough had been operating at full capacity in recent years”—

which was a decision that was not taken in 2017—

“it would have saved UK households £100 from both their gas and their electricity bills”.

So does the hon. Lady agree that the sustainable thing to do would have been—and still is—to invest in gas storage facilities?

I thank the Member for his intervention, but we should still be investing in storage from the North sea; that is still the best storage that we have.

The real human cost of Labour’s plans on energy is that the cost of living crisis is being made even worse. And all the while, countries such as China and India continue to open new coal-fired factories. UK emissions are the lowest they have been since the 1850s, while China pumped out more carbon between 2013 and 2020 than Britain has produced over the past 220 years. That is not just because it is a bigger country; China’s per-person emissions are more than double the UK’s, and are rising.

Can my hon. Friend throw any light on the apparent contradiction whereby the Government seem prepared to import fossil fuels—thus exporting our carbon footprint—but not to allow us to develop our own fossil fuel resources? Is it because they are afraid that, once we develop them, we will not want to stop using them, or is there some other explanation?

It is, unfortunately, a mystery to me. I do not understand why we would be making this trade. It is clearly a bad one. No matter how much we might wish it were otherwise, this Government cannot and will not make a dent in addressing global climate change. We are simply sending our emissions abroad while British businesses and families pay the price. People across the country are being forced to make hard choices because this Government will not face the facts and deliver the cheap, abundant energy that we so clearly and dearly need.

It is time for some home truths. The Conservative Government oversaw such a disastrous energy policy that it led to the worst cost of living crisis in generations. It started so well, and they just bottled it: they blocked wind power projects, failed to invest in nuclear, failed to invest in the grid, and were clueless when it came to solar, tidal and geothermal. Once again, it falls to this Government to clear up the mess left by the Conservative party, and we will not take any lectures from them on how to build a just transition to deliver long-term, sustainable, domestically produced energy to reduce bills.

Cornwall became a post-industrial land way before virtually any other part of the country, and anyone who visits Cornwall cannot miss the mines and wheelhouses that evocatively blend into our beautiful landscape. The Cornish Celtic tiger was tamed, but it is set to roar once again thanks to this Government’s commitment to critical minerals and the renewable transition. The hon. and gallant Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson) mentioned critical minerals, and our resources of tin, which is used in virtually every electrical device, lithium, which is used in EV batteries, and tungsten will provide domestically sourced resources to accelerate our transition to renewables while creating thousands of jobs and, as he said, reducing our reliance on Chinese imports.

It is beyond me why that took so long, but it has now taken 15 months of a Labour Government to see the benefits in Cornwall. Why the previous Government did not invest in Cornwall I have no idea, but driving down the A30, we can see that our landscape has new beautiful features, with wind turbines creating sustainable energy for local people. We have vast opportunities in wind, solar, geothermal and tidal, and Cornwall’s opportunities play a strategically prominent role in transitioning away from fossil fuels.

The hon. Member is making the argument for exploiting our home resources so we do not have to import such resources from elsewhere, but that is exactly the argument when it comes to North sea oil, is it not?

No, absolutely not. I am talking about why the Conservative Government did not make the investment in critical minerals that this Labour Government identified straightaway. It was there, and has been there for decades—for centuries, in fact—and it has been ignored, so we are now reliant on Chinese imports.

One of the challenges in bringing down energy costs is the up-front cost of the equipment people need to take advantage of cheaper electricity. My hon. Friend knows a lot about electric vehicles because he used to work in the sector, and he knows that the salary sacrifice scheme was the biggest single way of getting electric vehicles on to the road. Does he agree with me that the Government should look at a similar scheme for solar, battery, insulation and potentially heat pumps as a great way of enabling consumers to benefit from cheaper electricity?

I declare an interest, as the UK’s largest ground source heat pump company is based in my own constituency. I am a big advocate of ground source heat pumps, and I am hopeful that the Government will come forward with plans, particularly for social housing, to support that sector. My hon. Friend makes very valid points.

The opportunities in Cornwall would be scuppered without the likes of the round 7 allocation, and thousands of green job opportunities would be quashed. Opposition parties need to wake up. This Government are committed to transitioning away from fossil fuels, because to do so means that we will break free from the shackles of the wholesale gas price. We can control supply, and in doing so we will reduce domestic and business energy bills, rather than continually being exposed to the whims of the likes of Mr Putin. I know that some Members—maybe they are not here at the moment—quite admire Mr Putin, but this Labour Government, and, I suspect, those who are paying through the nose for Putin’s whims and the previous Government’s failure to invest, do not.

Talking of ideology, I must ask this question: what is it about the oil and gas-backed, climate change denying opposition parties that make them feel so threatened by the green energy transition?

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

I will not give way because of time, and I know that other Members are still to speak.

Opposition Members’ constituents will not thank them for blocking access to sustainable, low-cost energy, and Ministers know that we on this side of the House fully understand and support the transition, with interventions such as the warm home discount, which I do applaud. I urge Ministers to continue to ignore the siren calls and to pursue the path to long-term, cheap renewable energy, lowering bills and regenerating areas such as Cornwall that were long abandoned by the Conservatives. The previous Government lost the plot on energy, but this Government are taking back control of our energy industry.

My constituents are looking at their rising energy bills, already the second highest in the world, with a real sense of fear. People should not have to choose between heating and eating because of the direct choices—the political choices—of the Labour party.

It is not just residents I am hearing from. Many local organisations, from hospices to food manufacturers to the local pub, are worried about the rising costs. The Secretary of State’s ideological attacks on North sea oil and gas production are devastating not just communities across Scotland but high streets right across the country. Businesses are already struggling with lower footfall as customers rein in spending, worried about the security of their own jobs. It is a doom loop and the Government simply do not get it, but our small businesses do—businesses such as Wicks Farm in my constituency. It produces some of the best strawberries in the country, which, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would love to invite you to try. David, its director of agriculture, feels that there is no plan and no support—not for energy, not for infrastructure and certainly not for growth.

Rich and Mark, who run East Beach Guest House, a beautiful boutique hotel on the shoreline of Littlehampton beach, tell me they face a cliff edge of costs imposed by the Chancellor: the jobs tax, the family business tax and the costs of the Employment Rights Bill, as well as eye-watering energy bills. The Government are an existential threat to small businesses, and the families and communities they support. Enough is enough.

The reality is that every pound spent just to keep the lights on is a pound not spent in our shops. When businesses suffer, we lose jobs, skills and the very places where people meet, work and build a community. That is why I welcome the work done by the shadow Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho) in setting out what we on the Conservative Benches will do to support families and businesses right across the country.

Will the hon. Lady give way?

I will not, given the time constraints.

Our cheap power plan would axe the carbon tax, scrap renewable levies on household bills and put money back into the pockets of hard-working people, because if we give families certainty and give businesses room to breathe, the growth will follow. This is how we build an economy that works for everyone, not just on paper, but on every high street and in every town.

More people are now recognising that all is not well with the current approach to energy policy or net zero. That matters because the cost of energy is deeply tied to the cost of living, the cost of doing business, and the security and resilience of our country. It therefore follows that any energy policy which sees us spend £250 million per month to import energy from Europe because our own production cannot meet demand can only be called a failure and a security risk.

The country urgently requires an energy policy that is realistic, reliable and rooted in the pursuit of prosperity, yet what successive Governments have legislated for has been anything but. The net zero agenda is not working and it is time we were honest about that fact. The target may have been well-intentioned, but the current pathway is unaffordable and unworkable.

What many people will be wondering is, how did we get to this point? To address that, we must look back to the Climate Change Act 2008. When the Act was passed, it was the first legislation in the world to set a legally binding national framework for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, but it applies only to territorial emissions; that is, emissions that occur within the UK’s borders. This means that while it can be made to look as though we are meeting our climate targets, with a reported 54% reduction in territorial emissions since 1990, we are in fact exporting an increasing share of our emissions elsewhere. This phenomenon, known as carbon leakage, occurs when UK-based industries shut down or relocate overseas to avoid high carbon costs, only for the UK to continue importing the very same goods, often with higher embedded emissions.

Net zero by 2050 may lower UK emissions on paper, but perversely, it is also driving up global emissions in real terms as we become more reliant on imports.

Several forces contribute to this situation. First, UK electricity prices are now among the highest in the developed world, driven in no small part by net zero policies. Secondly, under the UK emissions trading scheme, firms in energy-intensive sectors must buy allowances for every tonne of carbon dioxide they emit—a cost their foreign competitors may not face. Thirdly, the rise of green finance regulations such as mandatory environmental, social and governance disclosure and climate stress testing has constrained domestic investment into high-emissions sectors, even as our competitors around the world forge ahead without similar constraints.

Will the hon. Lady give way?

I am going to continue, but thanks for the offer.

The economic consequences are now plain to see. Since 2021, the output of UK energy-intensive industries has fallen by around 35%. In sectors such as steel, petrochemicals and fertilisers, this trend is not theoretical, and the damage already done to once-proud industries is plain to see. At Grangemouth in Scotland, INEOS recently announced the closure of its ethanol production facility. Its founder, Sir Jim Ratcliffe, issued a stark warning at the time, saying that Britain is offshoring its emissions and onshoring virtue—we close plants here, import the same products from abroad, and claim we are greener.

Nowhere is this more apparent than in the decision to reduce North sea oil and gas output in favour of increased imports. On paper, this slashes the UK’s territorial emissions, but in reality, it leaves us more reliant on volatile overseas markets, increases our net carbon footprint and surrenders billions in domestic tax revenue and thousands of skilled British jobs. We appear to have confused decarbonisation with deindustrialisation.

What do we have to show for years of adherence to the Climate Change Act and everything that came with it? We now have the second highest domestic energy prices and the highest industrial electricity prices in the world, with 12 million families struggling to pay their energy bills. I defy anyone to try to sell that as any kind of success.

The old orthodoxy has been tried and found wanting, and we now need a better way forward. That is what we are offering today with our cheap power plan, which delivers on energy security, supports economic growth and protects the public from unaffordable green extremism.

It is vital that we challenge the bankrupt energy record of the UK Government—a record of failure that continues to punish Scottish workers, strip our national wealth and plunge families into fuel poverty.

The current policy being prosecuted from Westminster is not a sustainable plan. It is quite simply ripping jobs from the north-east of Scotland with nothing to replace them. Scotland is an energy-rich nation, abundant in both oil and gas, with world-leading renewable potential.

Does the hon. Gentleman realise that 90% of the jobs in the oil and gas sector are easily transferable to the renewables sector?

Yes, the jobs are transferable, but the work they can be transferred to needs to exist. It does not exist at the current time. The downturn in the North sea from a crippling fiscal regime is absolutely destroying those jobs and the skills that we need to get to that clean energy potential.

The SNP is clear in its support for a just transition for Scotland’s oil and gas sector, recognising the maturity of the North sea basin and aligning with our climate change commitments. However, we must be absolutely clear that a just transition does not mean simply stopping all future oil and gas activity overnight, as that approach threatens energy security and destroys the very skills we need to transfer to net zero.

We have repeatedly called on the UK Government to approach decisions for North sea oil and gas projects on a rigorously evidence-led, case-by-case basis, with climate compatibility and energy security as key considerations. Instead, we have seen a fiscal and licensing regime that is actively destroying the highly skilled jobs required to deliver clean energy security.

The energy profits levy is a crippling tax on Scotland’s energy and we must see its end in the upcoming Budget. We have seen the consequences laid bare: Harbour Energy confirms a cumulative headcount reduction of approximately 600 roles since the EPL was introduced in 2022, blaming the “punitive domestic fiscal regime”. Meanwhile, a landmark report found that one in four north-east firms has slashed jobs due to the tax. The decline in North sea oil and gas jobs currently outstrips the number of jobs created by the scale-up of the clean energy industry.

The loss of highly skilled offshore workers with transferable skills without the jobs to transfer to makes a mockery of the just transition. The Chancellor has the opportunity to fix this in two weeks. The question is: will she?

Furthermore, where is the support for the alternative? Labour promised that its flagship GB Energy project would bring down bills and create 1,000 new jobs in the north-east of Scotland, yet only 13 out of 69 employees at GB Energy are based in Aberdeen, while 31 are employed in London. Now we have heard the astonishing admission that creating 1,000 jobs was never the intention.

Let us turn to the soaring cost of living and the broken promises made to Scottish households. The Labour party promised to cut energy bills by £300 before the election, but the reality is that since the Government took office, bills have soared. Independent analysis shows that average energy bills could rise by £287 on their watch. To meet their original pledge, the Labour Government would need to cut bills by nearly £600. The situation facing Scots is completely absurd: we are an energy-rich country where bills are going up while energy jobs are going down. We produce enormous amounts of electricity, yet Scots pay among the highest energy bills anywhere in Europe.

Finally, we must address the UK Government’s ideological obsession with nuclear energy, which threatens Scotland’s transition to renewables. Scotland already has an abundance of clean, renewable energy—enough to power our country several times over. We do not need expensive nuclear power, yet Scots are being forced to pay for a nuclear power station they do not want and will not benefit from—and at great risk to our economy. I am speaking, of course, about the nuclear tax being imposed on Scottish households to fund the construction of Sizewell C in Suffolk. The plant is not expected to generate electricity until the mid-2030s at the earliest.

Furthermore, the long-term legacy of nuclear power is routinely ignored by Ministers. The true cost of the geological disposal facility for nuclear waste is now estimated to be up to £69 billion at current prices. The body responsible for the GDF project has described it as “unachievable”. This is an eye-wateringly large amount of money.

Whether it is the reckless fiscal regime destroying jobs in the North sea, the broken promises leaving families facing sky-high bills, or the imposition of a toxic nuclear tax to fund white elephants in England, Westminster’s energy policy—dictated to us by both Labour and the Tories—has been a complete failure. It is no wonder that more and more Scots are concluding that the only way to escape this repeated mismanagement and the only route to cheaper bills is through a fresh start with independence. It is time to put Scotland’s energy in Scotland’s hands.

As we head towards winter, I am sure that, like me, many Members will have begun to receive emails from worried constituents asking how they will afford to heat their homes this winter. The reality is that they were promised by this Labour Government that their energy bills would fall by £300. Instead, they have risen by almost £200. Britain now faces some of the highest electricity prices in the world, affecting everyone from families to businesses and communities. This comes down to one simple truth: this Labour Government are putting ideology before the British people.

Will the hon. Member give way?

I will continue because of time.

For those who doubt this, let me set out the cost of the Secretary of State’s policies, with statistics sourced from his own Department. The UK now faces the world’s second-highest domestic electricity prices: four times higher than those in the US, with 12.1 million households struggling to pay bills and 43% spending over 10% of their income on energy. At a time when energy security is crucial, the Government are closing our North sea oil and gas sector—an illogical move that in reality will cost us jobs and billions in lost economic value, all while not actually delivering the environmental benefit that many people understandably want to see. Shutting down domestic production does not reduce demand. It just means importing more from abroad, often with a far higher carbon footprint. Why do this Government persist with an ideologically driven approach when even the chair of Great British Energy and the Scottish renewables sector have both called for continued drilling in the North sea?

The Conservatives have set out a clear and credible plan for cheaper energy. Of course I want a clean and healthy environment for this generation and future generations, but we also need to recognise the wider context. If we make wise and prudent decisions today to support our economy, and if we utilise the resources we have and encourage investment and growth, we will have a springboard to pursue a greener future.

My concern is that we are making decisions influenced by the Climate Change Act. By only counting domestic emissions, one could, for example, close industries in the UK and shift production overseas, resulting in lost jobs, revenue and growth. Yes, it would meet the requirements of the Act, but all the while resulting in increasing global emissions.

Good intentions are not matching the reality for families or for the environment. I support our plan to cancel the carbon tax on electricity generation, saving every household £75 a year, and to end outdated renewable subsidies, saving families a further £90 annually. Labour promised a £300 reduction in bills, but bills have risen by £200. That is the price of putting ideology over delivery and pragmatism. I urge Members to back the Opposition motion and back our cheap power plan.

Order. Martin Wrigley has agreed to do three short minutes before we go to the Front Benchers.

The biggest issue in my inbox is the cost of living and the cost of energy in particular. In the south-west, we are a net contributor to renewable energy, and we could do even more with tidal power investment. Yet our energy bills are higher than the national average. In my Newton Abbot constituency, we have higher fuel poverty than the average, and 23% of households in the district are in off-gas-grid areas.

Yet we face electricity bills based on the price of gas. That is because the electricity generation market is set up using so-called marginal cost pricing, which effectively increases the wholesale price of renewables to that of electricity generated by gas because gas power plants are flexible and used to top up the supply. Even though a significant and increasing proportion of the UK’s electricity is generated by sources with low marginal costs such as wind, solar and nuclear power, these generators also receive the higher marginal price set by gas.

Under the marginal pricing system, the UK’s electricity market price is set by gas 98% of the time—the highest rate across Europe and well above the EU average of just 40%. All that is under the Government-controlled system of contract to energy generators, to provide a level of certainty in the productivity and supply. But we have to break the tie with gas and marginal cost pricing.

The introduction of contracts for difference, used most significantly for offshore wind and introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) in the Energy Act 2013, is a good step but it still relies on setting a strike price for energy, which is heavily influenced by the price of gas at the time of the deal. In the 12 months to September 2025, renewables accounted for 42% of the UK’s total energy mix, while figures for the second quarter of 2025 indicate that renewables made up a record 54% of electricity generation.

The answer for cheaper bills, according to experts, is to intervene in the design of the market to stop the cost of gas plants from setting the price for the whole market, not to increase the reliance on fossil fuels that are choking the planet to death with carbon emissions.

Two Labour promises gone in one day—that must be a record, even for this failing Government. We heard today confirmation that there is no way that the Government are going to cut energy bills by £300 by 2030. This is a party that campaigned on the pledge of cutting bills by £300, yet we have seen families’ bills go up. The party consistently blamed volatile gas prices, until the gas price fell; now it must confront the reality that its extortionate auction rounds, race to Clean Power 2030 and strangulation of our North sea industry are impacting households up and down the country. This Government have no plan to cut energy bills for the British people.

In comparison, our cheap power plan, as set out by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho), would cut families’ bills by 20% immediately. Our cheap power plan would take £165 off the average electricity bill by axing the carbon tax on electricity generation, stopping the Secretary of State’s rip-off auctions and scrapping ridiculously expensive old renewable subsidies.

I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker. I do not normally read in the Chamber—I do not think it is good form—but in this case I will. This is available on the shadow Minister’s website. He says:

“I am also proud of the UK’s world-leading role in tackling climate change…with the UK being the first country to introduce legally binding long-term emissions targets under the landmark Climate Change Act in 2008.”

He now wants to scrap that Act, does he not?

Yes, I do want to scrap that Act. We will scrap that Act because the cost to the British people is far too high and it is unsustainable. That is why we want to bolster domestic energy security by backing British oil and gas, supporting workers and reducing reliance on imports, which have soared as a direct result of this Government’s policies.

Will he give way?

I will not because time is limited, and I want to give the Minister time to respond—oh fine, go on!

I thank the hon. Member for giving way. On that same website, he talks about the deep emissions cuts that result from the Climate Change Act’s emissions targets. Does he agree with the website that were it not for the Climate Change Act, those emission reductions would not have happened?

I did not know that my website was such a go-to place for Labour MPs. I recommend they read some of the other things on that website, including the setting out of how our cheap power plan will reduce bills.

I have not had time to go on my hon. Friend’s website, but I hear it is a good read. The fact of the matter is that he puts forward a policy that will cut energy bills—the opposite of what the Government are doing—create jobs in the North sea and ensure economic growth. Is that not the case?

Yes, and I recommend he looks at my website because everybody else in the Chamber seems to have done so by now.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

I will do so one last time and then I really need to make progress.

I am interested in hearing what he has to say about cutting bills. Does he not recognise that the cost of letting climate change go on unmitigated is a vast one for every household in this country?

I remind the hon. Lady that, as she well knows, we cut our carbon emissions faster than any other developed nation on Earth and yet global warming is increasing. We need to encourage other countries to reduce their emissions, but we do not do that on the backs of British bill payers, who pay far too much for their energy. I thought the Liberal Democrats would be supportive of creating jobs and reducing bills and the burden on British people, but obviously they are not.

The Government’s policies have seen imports soar as a direct result. Those policies have been described as “naive” by the GMB; “incorrect” by the American ambassador; they will make Britain increasingly dependent, according to the Norwegian Government; they need replaced, says Scottish Renewables; and they lead to a “haemorrhaging” of energy jobs, according to none other than the head of Great British Energy, Juergen Maier. In fact, the only person who seems to think that this is a good way to manage our energy industry is the Energy Secretary.

This Government are sacrificing an industry and livelihoods, communities and prosperity on this mission, many of them in my constituency. The irony is not lost in the north-east of Scotland. We import more gas from abroad, from the very same sea that we are prevented from exploiting ourselves, and at a higher carbon footprint, while workers in Aberdeen and across the north-east of Scotland and the domestic supply chain across the United Kingdom see their jobs disappear. Aberdonians are incredibly proud of the fact that an Aberdonian accent can be found in every oil-rich nation on earth. Soon, the only place we will not find a Scottish oil and gas worker is in Aberdeen itself. One thousand jobs are set to be lost every month as a direct result of the policies of this Labour Government, because those people are leaving. They are off to the middle east, Australia, the far east, South America, Mexico, the USA and Canada—in fact, they are off to anywhere the British Labour party is not in charge of energy policy.

This successful industry is enduring a politically manufactured decline, made in Whitehall and devastating livelihoods across the UK and particularly in Scotland. This Government are demonstrating a reckless disregard for the industry, which for decades has kept the lights on in this country; an industry that we will continue to need for decades to come.

The oil and gas industry has been through challenging waters before. The 2014-15 global downturn and oil price collapse saw a contraction in operations and job losses. Yet the response could not be more different. In 2015, the Conservative Government commissioned the Wood review and initiated a policy of maximum economic recovery from the North sea. We recognised the value of the domestic industry and acted accordingly.

Our oil and gas industry is facing tough times again, but this time the downturn is only in the UK. Globally, the energy industry is booming. In the UAE and Saudi Arabia, the gulf of America, South America and Norway, activity is increasing, and New Zealand has just overturned the ban on drilling brought in by its previous Labour Government. The difficulties experienced in our domestic industry are the result of political decisions driven by ideology over pragmatism.

I very much hope the Chancellor is listening to us on these Benches, and to the workers in the oil and gas industry, their unions, the businesses, the Americans, the Norwegians, the renewables industry and even Juergen Maier, because we are at a critical turning point. The industry stands on a precipice. The Chancellor must act now. If she does not act now, at this Budget, the UK will not have a domestic oil and gas industry left to salvage. The real irony is that the Secretary of State, in his vitriol and zealotry, is jeopardising the future of renewable energy in the North sea. As the Port of Aberdeen CEO said this week as he announced further job losses, our energy sector risks being “stranded” in limbo between the destruction of our oil and gas industry and a nascent renewables sector. Also this week, we saw Shell divest from offshore wind projects. The Government just do not get it. With their scorched earth strategy against our traditional offshore industries, they are decimating a skilled workforce and dismantling a world-leading supply chain. Talent and capital are moving elsewhere.

We need cheap energy, and that means all of the above: nuclear, gas, hydropower and innovative technologies, and renewables if it can be proven that they will cut bills. As this Labour Government rip the floor from beneath the oil and gas industry of today, they will soon realise that they are losing the workforce, the supply chains and the investment of tomorrow, but there is another way: our way. The Government should declare the North sea open for business, reduce our reliance on imports, get rid of the energy profits levy, build more nuclear—big and small—create energy abundance and cut electricity bills for families by 20% right now using our cheap power plan. They could do it but, blinded by ideology, I very much doubt they will.

I thank all right hon. and hon. Members across the House for their contributions in this short but punchy debate this afternoon. This issue of how we build an energy system for the future has rightly become a huge political topic—a conversation not just in this House but much more in the public domain than it has been for some time. Energy is hugely important, and that is why it is even more important that we rise to the occasion to plan a future energy system that works for everyone in this country and that is based on a credible long-term plan, not on what we saw from the Conservatives today.

It has been an interesting debate, not least because quite a lot of it seemed to contain the echoes of the Tory party of late debating with itself. We had mentions of Boris Johnson and Baroness May, and I think we have doubled the number of visitors to the shadow Minister’s website just in the past half hour. Of course, there are plenty of quotes to go around. We do not need to go right back to the dim and distant Boris Johnson days. We can go back just to 2023, when the then Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho), said that

“the climate transition presents huge opportunities for this country and the people of this country when it comes to jobs, investment and improving our energy security.”

She apparently does not believe in any of that now. She said in the same speech:

“We are not rolling back from our targets at all”—[Official Report, 16 October 2023; Vol. 738, c. 114-115.]

However, she stands here today and proudly seems to dismiss all those targets.

I was particularly pleased to hear from the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) earlier. He seems to be the only person left in the Conservative party who is willing to defend 14 years of investment in renewables. Everybody else in the party wants to turn their back on that investment, but I am delighted that he is here, in this debate and in many others, to remind us of his contribution.

The Minister is a thoughtful person, and I think he will share the concern about North sea oil and gas, for instance. On the specific topic of renewables, we are proud of what we did, but under the Climate Change Act—which has no cognisance of what happens to the economy; it is just decarbonisation or bust—we now have extraordinarily high electricity prices. We need to decarbonise heat, transport and industry, and the main way to do that is by electrification, which puts us in a bind. That is why I believe we are right to look at getting rid of the Climate Change Act and look at a new, balanced system that recognises that we must balance economics with the righteous move towards tackling climate change.

I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman was able to have another opportunity to speak positively about the Conservative party’s record on renewables when no one else in his party seems to want to talk about that at all.

A number of hon. Members said that the reason we are still subject to the volatility of gas prices is that it still sets the price far too often. The only way that we will bring down prices in the long term is by removing gas as the price setter. That means that we need to build more renewables, but another key point that the Conservatives have missed is that they built lots of those projects while not building the grid to connect them. They talk about constraint payments, but that is the legacy of a party that for 14 years failed to build the grid that would bring significantly cheaper power to homes and businesses across the country.

Is it not the truth that once the projects have been built, the energy is free? There is no commodity concentration, because the wind and sunlight cost nothing; there is very little cost apart from the installation.

I would say that it is significantly cheaper to generate electricity from renewables, but I might not go quite as far as the hon. Lady does.

There is a false argument that because the wholesale price of gas is cheaper, we should simply rely on gas more. That completely ignores the fact that we have an ageing gas fleet in this country, and would have to build significant numbers of new gas power stations to take advantage of that price. The figure the Conservatives frequently throw around compares the construction costs of renewables with the cost of gas, not the cost of building gas power stations, whereas renewables have extremely cheap ongoing costs in the long run.

Will the Minister give way?

Sorry, I will not. I have a great respect for the hon. Gentleman, but I have four minutes to sum up this debate.

For a long time in our post-war history, there was consensus. It was fuelled first by the transformative discovery of gas in the North sea, but also by a protracted period of us not worrying about whether, when we flicked on a switch, the electrons would flow. Putin’s invasion of Ukraine threw all that consensus away, and it threw into stark reality our dependence on gas power. By 2022, astronomic energy prices, which many of our constituents still face, shattered the complacent idea that continuing with the system we have known for a long time would work.

The answer is to build a system fit for the future. That will not be easy. Too often in this House and in our public discourse, we have come to believe that we can achieve difficult things by giving simplistic answers. This issue is complicated, and only by tackling the root causes of our dependence on gas, and the failure to build grids and the infrastructure of the future that we need, can we deliver not only long-term bill discounts for our constituents, but the energy security that we badly need. Most of our electricity grid was built in the 1960s and has not been upgraded since. It is holding back economic growth, but it is also failing to get cheaper power to people’s homes across the country.

The country faces two paths. From the Conservatives today, we have heard the status quo—the idea that we carry on as we have done, hoping that the volatility of fossil fuels will give us cheaper prices for a little while, until we get to the next spike and fail to protect our consumers. We have seen that time and again. In the past 50 years, half of the recessions in this country have been caused by our exposure to fossil fuels. We will not do the same thing again. We will not build an expensive monument to how we used to do things—to a system that let people down. We will deliver change and build an energy system for the future. That is why we are delivering our clean power mission.

I turn to the contributions on the North sea, which is a hugely important subject. I am afraid that I do not have quite as much time to sum up as I thought I might. It is important to recognise that the North sea has been in transition for a long time. Failing to recognise that does not help the workers in the North sea now. The status quo has led to a third of those workers losing their jobs in the past 10 years, and it has let down workers and communities. The failure to have a plan has let them down, but we will not do that. The status quo cannot be sustained, either economically or practically, so we will set out our future for energy in the North sea in the coming weeks. It will recognise the importance of creating new jobs and driving forward investment in renewables, carbon capture and hydrogen. We will not talk down those industries, but we also recognise that oil and gas will be with us for decades to come. The workers who have powered our country for more than half a century will continue to have a hugely important part to play in our energy system and economy.

There are two paths ahead of us: ambition for our country, or the barely managed decline that we have all faced in the past 14 years; hope that we can build something better, or defeatism that says we should not tackle the climate crisis or build new infrastructure because it might be too difficult; building for the future, or the yellow brick road of nostalgia, which has let so many of our constituents down. All of us in this House want energy security, economic growth, cheaper bills and to improve people’s lives. What divides us in this place is our ambition. We are ambitious for the future of the country, for what we can achieve, and about tackling the climate emergency. We will get on with that. The Conservatives need to learn the lessons of their 14 years of failure.

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

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Earlier today we had an urgent question on the process for appointing the Independent Football Regulator. In her response, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport was unable to give crystal clear answers about the involvement of the Prime Minister in that process. This evening we learned from No. 10 that the Prime Minister did sign off on the appointment of David Kogan, who donated to the Prime Minister’s campaign—an involvement that the Prime Minister’s ethics adviser has called regrettable. Can you advise if the Prime Minister will make a statement? What alternative mechanisms are there for him to inform the House and update the record?

I thank the hon. Member for giving me notice of that point of order. I have not received any notice of a statement on this matter, but the Treasury Front Benchers will have heard what he has said and will no doubt share that information. Other parliamentary mechanisms are available for pursuing such matters. I am sure that the Table Office will be able to assist the hon. Member, if he needs further advice.

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I hope it is not a continuation of that point of order, because I have made my statement clearly.

The Prime Minister is of course responsible for the enforcement of the ministerial code. If he has breached it, as appears to be the case, is there a role here for Mr Speaker? What other methods are there, not just for securing a debate on the matter in this place, but for the Prime Minister to be held to account for not doing what he is supposed to have done, and what his ethics adviser said he should have done?

The right hon. Member is incredibly experienced, and will no doubt know that the ministerial code is not a matter for the Chair. He will obviously pursue all avenues available to those in the House—there are many—to continue this conversation.