PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Energy Markets - 5 March 2026 (Commons/Commons Chamber)

With permission, I will make a statement about the situation in energy markets in the light of the unfolding conflict in Iran and the middle east. My thoughts are with the British citizens and those across the world affected by the events of recent days, and I thank members of our armed forces serving in the region and elsewhere.

Let me update the House on the situation in global oil and gas markets and the impact on the UK. In the days since the conflict began, we have seen Iran target energy production and export infrastructure across the Gulf. Traffic in the strait of Hormuz, through which around 20% of global oil and liquefied natural gas is shipped, has declined very significantly, and the Iranian regime has issued reckless and unjustified threats to all ships using it. LNG production has also been halted in Qatar, following unjustified and indiscriminate Iranian attacks at the start of the week.

The UK benefits from strong and diverse energy supplies, including our own North sea production, pipelines with Norway, interconnectors with continental Europe and three LNG terminals. While Qatar is a major supplier of LNG globally, last year it provided the UK with 1% of our gas supply. I have been in touch with National Gas and the National Energy System Operator, which are confident about our security of supply. On oil, we hold substantial emergency and commercial stocks and stand ready to work with the International Energy Agency to support the stability of oil markets if needed. As when Russia invaded Ukraine, though, we will be exposed to price competition in international oil and gas markets, which is pushing up wholesale prices as other countries seek to replace lost supplies from the region. That reflects our position, regardless of our domestic production, as a price taker not a price maker in these markets, leaving us exposed to their volatility, no matter where the fossil fuels come from.

The Government continue to monitor the situation closely and work with our international partners. In recent days I have had multiple conversations with the executive director of the IEA, as well as with my counterparts in Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the EU and our major UK oil and gas producers. I will be having further calls with our international allies and partners over the coming days. This is a fast-moving situation, and we continue to work with our allies to seek to minimise the impact of disruption to markets and support the safe passage of oil and gas across the world.

I know that families and businesses across the country will see these global events and be concerned about the impact on their energy bills and the cost of living. It is important to say that the energy price cap will provide protection for households until the start of July, regardless of developments in the middle east. Last week, Ofgem confirmed that as a result of the Chancellor’s decisions in the Budget, the price cap will fall by 7%, or £117 annually, for the period covering April to June. The price cap for that period is fixed and will not change. That is a direct result of decisions in the Budget by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor to raise taxes on the wealthiest, and to cut bills for families across Britain. In addition, around 6 million families are benefiting from our expansion of the £150 warm home discount, and we are delivering the biggest investment in home upgrades in British history through our warm homes plan, to cut bills and shield families from these kinds of fossil fuel shocks.

On business and industry, we are taking action to expand the British industry supercharger from April to reduce costs for the most energy-intensive businesses, and a significant proportion of businesses are on fixed-term contracts that shield them from market volatility for the contract duration. However, we recognise that at the point of contracting, businesses are exposed to international fossil fuel markets, and clearly, for both businesses and consumers, much will depend on the length of this crisis.

On Tuesday in her spring statement, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor reaffirmed her commitment to prioritise families and businesses, whatever turbulence we see around the world. She showed her determination to act on bills in the Budget last year, and as we continue to monitor the effects of these events, the House and country should be in no doubt that the Prime Minister’s No. 1 priority is to tackle the cost of living crisis that affects families across Britain. However long this crisis lasts, we must learn the right long-term lessons. The events of recent days are yet another reminder that the only route to energy security and sovereignty for the UK is to get off our dependence on fossil fuel markets, whose prices we do not control, and on to clean home-grown power that we do control.

Only several weeks ago, some people were suggesting that we should gamble on low fossil fuel prices and cancel the allocation round 7 renewables auction. When I made my statement on that auction, I warned the House that people can have incredibly short memories, given that we are just four years on from Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. I warned at the time that it was a foolish and dangerous gamble to bet on geopolitical stability during greater geopolitical instability than at any time for generations. I warned that the Opposition had failed to learn lessons from the Ukraine crisis, which caused the worst cost of living crisis in memory, and that a dogma of opposing clean energy would damage this country, and risk families and businesses being left to pick up the bill. The events of recent days have unfortunately shown why that would be such a dangerous and reckless strategy, and we will continue to reject it. Instead, our AR7 renewables auction alone will supply enough home-grown, secure, clean power for the equivalent of 16 million homes. That is power we will not have to source from the international gas market, power that will not be at the mercy of international events, and power over which we, not fossil fuel markets, have control.

Of course, North sea production continues to play an important and valuable role in our energy system, but as we learn the right lessons from this crisis, this Government will not succumb to the false arguments peddled by some. It is a maturing basin and accounts for less than 0.7% of global oil and gas production. New exploration licences are completely marginal to that basin, and would make no difference to prices set by international markets and paid by UK billpayers.

“More UK production wouldn’t reduce the global price of gas”—

those are not my words, but those of the former Energy Minister, Greg Hands in 2022, in midst of the last energy crisis. Indeed, the shadow Energy Secretary said in 2023 that new licences

“wouldn’t necessarily bring energy bills down”.

This Government have taken the decision to keep existing fields open for their lifetime, including through transitional energy certificates in our North sea future plan, as called for and welcomed by industry. They have also decided not to issue new licences to explore new fields, which the science tells us is the right thing to do, because this Government will not ignore the biggest long- term threat multiplier to our security and stability that we face: the climate crisis.

As the Prime Minister said yesterday, for Labour Members the lesson of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and the lesson of recent days, is that our mission is the only route to greater energy independence for Britain, and we will double down on it. Every solar panel we install, every wind turbine we put up, and every nuclear power station we build makes us more secure as a country, and protects families and businesses from those kinds of energy shocks.

This Government have learned the lessons of the geopolitical instability we have seen and continue to see. In an unstable world, we will keep driving for energy sovereignty and abundance with clean home-grown power. We will not gamble with the British people’s money at the fossil fuel casino, and ignore the lessons of the past. We have shown a determination to act to help families, and we will continue to do so. We will work with our allies and partners to defend our national interest, and seek to bring this conflict to an end for the benefit of citizens at home and the stability of the world, and I commend this statement to the House.

I call the shadow Minister, Harriet Cross.

I thank the Secretary of State for advanced sight of his statement. Events in the middle east this past week have shown why it is so vital that the Government do all they can to ensure that UK businesses and households have a secure, reliable supply of dispatchable energy—a supply we can rely on. Affordable energy is vital, but just as important is security of supply. There was nothing new in the Secretary of State’s statement—no actions, just notes of some meetings—but there were and are actions that he can take, and he could take them now for both supplies and for bills.

No matter how much the green lobby or the Secretary of State wish that the UK could end its reliance on oil and gas overnight, we cannot. Some 40% of the UK’s energy comes from gas, which is the UK’s single biggest energy source, and 24 million UK homes, and half a million businesses, are connected to the gas grid. Currently, 43% of gas used in the UK is produced in our North sea basin, which is a vital energy source. Every molecule of gas produced by the UK in the North sea is piped on to our shores and into our grid. The oil produced comes onshore either here or in Europe to be refined. It does not, and cannot, get caught in the strait of Hormuz or elsewhere. It is a secure supply of oil for the UK.

Our North sea oil and gas sector has been, is, and should remain vital for our national security and be a national security resource for many years, yet it is a resource that the Government, and this Secretary of State, are actively trying to shut down. The GMB Scotland secretary has called his plans “delusional”, and mean that we are facing

“the most destructive industrial calamity in our nation’s history—a disaster risking untold jobs, communities, even higher bills, and our energy security”.

The North sea oil and gas industry and its workforce must be protected. The Secretary of State knows that that workforce, and those supply chains will, if still here, deliver the roll-out of technologies such as wind and nuclear in the future. The Secretary of State must overturn his ban on new oil and gas licences—will he? He must immediately give confidence to the industry that it has a future in the North sea by finally granting Jackdaw and Rosebank. What is taking so long? To kick-start investment, stem the accelerating fall in production, and secure the skilled workforce and supply chains, he must, with the Treasury, end the energy profits levy now.

Nuclear is the UK’s route to energy security. Nuclear works in the winter, can run 24/7, and latest prices worldwide show that it can also be much cheaper. As the Secretary of State knows, our existing plants are nearing end of life, and the Government are stalling on actions to replace or renew new gigawatt-scale sites. They have ruled out large-scale nuclear at Wylfa, and dropped the previous Conservative Government’s 24 GW target. In light of current events, does the Secretary of State accept that not granting a new gigawatt-scale plant at Wylfa—arguably the best site in the country for a large-scale plant—was a huge missed opportunity? We are still waiting for the Government to accept recommendations in the Fingleton review, which will make nuclear cheaper and easier to build. When will the Secretary of State do so, and will he do so in full?

I will touch briefly on the luddite approach to energy from the Scottish National party in Scotland. SNP Members try to talk a good game and sound as if they support energy workers, energy generation and energy investment, but that is an illusion. They have a ban on new nuclear, and still a presumption against new oil and gas. They are happy to coat the countryside with pylons, turbines and batteries, but they have no plan whatsoever for when the wind does not blow.

Last year the Secretary of State signed a secret energy deal with China. He does not like it to be called a secret, but what other word can there be when he refused to publish details month after month, and only published them after sustained pressure from my right hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State? It is no surprise that he wanted to keep it a secret. It is agreeing to co-operate with China—a known threat—on batteries, cables, inverters, and turbines, effectively giving a nation that is known to have interfered in numerous sovereign states, and that has placed kill switches in energy infrastructure that it has exported, access to our energy grid. That is at best foolish, and at worst reckless. Whatever we call it, it is another threat to our energy security.

Businesses are struggling with sky-high energy prices, and households are bracing themselves for energy bills that may rise significantly this year. The Conservatives’ clean power plan would reduce bills by 20%. The Secretary of State could take action today, so will he adopt our cheap power plan?

I will answer the hon. Lady’s questions in a moment, but first I say to her that the biggest question for this House and for the country is: do we learn the lessons of these crises? Half the recessions that have happened since the 1970s have been caused by fossil-fuel price spikes. We all face a choice: we can either learn the lessons of those crises and drive towards clean, home-grown power—to be fair, at some points, that used to be the policy of the last Conservative Government—or we can pretend that those lessons do not exist, and we can keep repeating the same mistake. I fear that since the general election, the Conservatives, having already moved halfway from learning that important lesson, have moved away from it fully.

That takes me to the answers to the hon. Lady’s questions. On nuclear, we are undertaking the biggest nuclear building programme for half a century. We are doing all the things the last Government promised and never delivered. Where were the Conservatives on Sizewell C? They said that they would have agreement on it in the last Parliament, but they did not; we are doing it. Where were they with small modular reactors? We are actually putting them in place. Yes, we will publish the details of the Fingleton review shortly, and it will be an important step forward in the regulation of our industry that the Conservatives never took.

The hon. Lady said that the North sea is an incredibly “important” resource, which is exactly what I said in my statement. We listened to the industry and took a pragmatic approach on tie-back to existing fields, which was welcomed by the industry, to keep our manifesto commitment of keeping existing oil and gas fields open for their lifetime. I want to pause on the point that she raised about new exploration licences. The truth is, as everybody knows, new exploration licences, particularly in the light of tie-backs, will make no difference to production. It is important to remember that on average it is 10 years from exploration to production.

Last year, an important report by the National Energy System Operator on the security of gas supply said that the biggest single thing that we could do for security of supply is drive towards a clean energy transition. The more we fail to do that, the more we are exposed, given that the North sea is a declining basin that has seen production fall by 75% in last 25 years, and that 70,000 jobs were lost under the Conservatives.

On the hon. Lady’s point about the windfall tax, the Chancellor says that she wants the windfall tax to end, but obviously she has to look at the current circumstances. I notice that the Conservatives have now disavowed their decision to introduce the windfall tax. The windfall tax has raised £12 billion since 2022 because of supernormal profits—the money that was going from our constituents into the pockets of oil and gas companies. It is all very easy to say, “We shouldn’t have done the windfall tax,” but the Conservatives did introduce it, and I think it was the right thing to do. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor listens closely to the industry, and was talking to representatives from the industry about these issues yesterday, but it is important to recognise those other issues.

On the environmental impact assessment process, we will follow the right process because we want to ensure that what we do is legally watertight and not subject to endless judicial review, and that is what the industry wants.

To return to my original point—

What about China?

Last week, I said that what the Conservatives were saying about the memo was a whacky internet conspiracy theory, and they said, “No, it isn’t, so why don’t you publish it?”, so I did, and now they have nothing say. Not only did we publish our memo, but I am glad to say that we published the Conservative memo from 2015. What did that show? That we were going to get the Chinese to build nuclear power stations for us, for goodness’ sake. I urge all Members to look at the facts and the evidence, and to learn the right lessons.

I call the Chair of the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee.

Yesterday, the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee looked at the facts and the evidence: Ofgem and NESO told us that the price cap will be in place until June as a short-term protection; that clean power 2030 is indeed the best way to avoid future exposure to the sorts of risks that we are now experiencing; that energy costs as a share of GDP will fall from their current 10% to between 5% and 6% by 2050, according to Government plans; and that there is no prospect of bringing down prices by undertaking activity in the North sea. What plans does the Secretary of State have for short-term support for bill payers? We heard evidence about the reformed national pricing consultation that is under way. May I encourage him to bring that forward, so that bill payers can benefit from the availability of low-demand cheap electricity as soon as possible, as an immediate response to this crisis?

My hon. Friend speaks wisely on these issues. I agree with what he said about how we get energy security and the right thing to do. On the question of bill payers, across Government and across the House, we are incredibly alive to and vigilant about the potential impact of the crisis. I believe there is cross-party support for the price cap, which I think is very important. In a world without the price cap, we would see much more immediate effects. That does not mean that everyone is protected, but the vast majority of domestic consumers are protected by the price cap.

My hon. Friend asked about short-term action, including through RNP. As he would imagine, across my Department, there is intensive work under way, looking at all the options that we have. As the regulator said to the Committee yesterday, much of this will depend on how long the crisis lasts, but the Chancellor and the Prime Minister have both shown their willingness and determination to act on bills, and I am sure that will remain.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

The conflict in the middle east reminds us again how dangerously exposed the UK is to volatile global fossil fuel markets. Forecasts by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation have shown that, just as happened after Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine, energy bills could go up dramatically, placing further pressure on families and businesses that are struggling, while energy companies make profits. The leader of the Liberal Democrats, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey), asked the Prime Minister yesterday to give a cast-iron guarantee that he would not let energy bills rise by £500 this year, but he did not. Will the Secretary of State give that guarantee?

Why are we so exposed? Because of our heavy reliance on gas, limited storage capacity, dependence on imports, and falling domestic liquefied natural gas inventories. As recently as January, the Conservatives were arguing in favour of continued reliance on gas, due to the price falling at that time, but it has taken less than two months for them to be proven wrong. Meanwhile, given the instability in European energy markets caused by the ongoing conflicts, I am glad to hear that the Secretary of State has engaged with energy counterparts in the EU. I would like to hear more details of their analysis of the potential impact on supply, prices and regional energy security.

I agree with the hon. Lady on her fundamental point about why we are exposed. Cost of living support is obviously a matter for the Prime Minister and the Chancellor, but I reiterate to her that the Chancellor showed a willingness to act on these issues in the Budget because she recognised the pressures that families are facing, and that the cost of living crisis is by far the biggest issue facing our country. At Prime Minister’s questions, the Prime Minister again reiterated that we are carefully monitoring the situation. The Government have shown their willingness to intervene, and if necessary, we will intervene again.

On the wider points that the hon. Lady makes, the most important thing to emphasise is that we have to go back to the fundamentals. That means driving forward with clean power and the insulation of homes. Our European counterparts, whom she asked about, face similar challenges. Through the International Energy Agency, we are all engaged on some of the issues around oil stocks that I raised in my statement. She is absolutely right that co-operation with our European colleagues is particularly vital at this time.

I thank the Secretary of State for his very clear and measured statement. May I ask him about two points? First, if we see rises in bills in forthcoming months, can we ensure that the blame is placed firmly where it should be—on the actions of the Iranian Government in attacking and threatening the strait of Hormuz?

Secondly, in the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee meeting yesterday, we heard from the chief executive of Ofgem that a prolonged period of closure of the strait of Hormuz would create an upward pressure on prices. He indicated during that evidence session that the market anticipated that it could manage a period of roughly two weeks. As the conflict continues to develop, does the Secretary of State have any sense of what might be meant by a “prolonged period of time” that would create upward pressure? Will he ensure that the Committee and the House are kept informed?

I thank my hon. Friend for his excellent questions. On the first point, he is absolutely right. I spoke to my counterpart, the Qatari Energy Minister, and it was the attacks on Qatar’s LNG terminals, and understandable fears for their workforce as a result of indiscriminate Iranian attacks, that led him to make his decisions. Iranian threats to the strait of Hormuz are preventing the passage of shipping, and my hon. Friend is absolutely right to emphasise that point.

I will not speculate on my hon. Friend’s point about how long the conflict will last, but he is right to say that the longer the conflict goes on, the more impact there will be on bill payers and our economy. That is why it is in all our interests for this conflict to come to an end as soon as possible. On his other point, I undertake to keep the House and the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee informed.

Representing the constituency of Brigg and Immingham as I do, I recognise that the renewable energy sector is attracting investment and jobs into the area. However, I have thousands of people who work in energy-intensive industries, and their jobs are increasingly at risk. As with everything, compromise and balance are important. May I urge the Secretary of State to recognise that the energy costs for industry are crippling many businesses? We must do something to address that.

I absolutely recognise the challenges that many businesses faced even before the crisis. It is important to say that even before the crisis began, fossil fuel prices were still 40% higher than before Russia invaded Ukraine, and businesses were facing the impacts of that.

We are taking action this April on the supercharger, but that is for only 500 or so of the most energy-intensive businesses. We are also taking action next April on the British industrial competitiveness scheme, which is for 7,000 businesses, but I recognise the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. Just as we are looking across Government at the situation that households face, and working on that, we are looking at the impact on businesses; indeed, I was talking to my colleague the Secretary of State for Business and Trade yesterday.

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to expose the utter folly of responding to the situation that faces us by saying, “We need to stop with renewables and invest more in oil and gas.” It would be utter madness to learn that lesson. When we had the huge price spike as a result of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the fact that oil and gas was coming from the UK made no difference to the amount that our consumers paid, because it was all on the global market.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the marginal pricing system, which was set up at a time when 80% or 90% of energy was being generated by fossil fuels, is far less robust at a time when the figure for gas is down to 40% and shrinking the entire time, and more than 50% of our energy comes from renewable sources? Because renewables are cheaper, should we not look to benefit from that, rather than having a system that allows gas to set the price, even if it accounts for only 1% of our energy?

I agree with the first part of my hon. Friend’s question, so I will take the last part on marginal pricing, as that is the challenge, and be as brief as I can. I completely understand the logic of his question. One of the benefits of a clean power system is that gas will set the price much less of the time. One of the benefits of moving from the renewables obligation to contracts for difference is that it gives us a fixed price that is not subject to the marginal price of gas. I am sympathetic to the principle that my hon. Friend espouses, but the truth is that there are significant obstacles to getting to what he wants to see in a timely way and a way that is better for bill payers. Among all the other things, my Department continues to look at that.

The Energy Security and Net Zero Committee is running an inquiry into the costs of energy, as we have already heard from its Chair. With all due respect, I cannot understand how the Conservative Opposition can with a straight face deplore the cost of energy for bill payers while at the same time advocate prolonging our dependency on oil and gas. That is precisely what keeps our energy bills high.

Let me come back to our inquiry. We heard from one of the witnesses from E3G that there could be costs of up to £500 per household in hidden profits due to the untransparent network charges put on to energy bills. Will the Government ensure that bill payers are given a full picture of the breakdown of profits across the energy sector?

I thank the hon. Lady for the point that she makes. It is worth saying that Lord Browne of Madingley, formerly of BP, was on the radio yesterday making precisely the same point that she and I have made. This is a man who used to run one of the world’s largest oil and gas companies, and he said that the lesson of this crisis is that we have to get on to clean power.

On the hon. Lady’s point about networks, it is important to be transparent about that. It is also important to bear down on those costs, and I obviously discuss that a lot with the regulator.

My right hon. Friend talks about the lessons learned. Despite my youthful good looks, I recall the 1979 Iranian revolution—the last Iranian revolution—which led to a fuel crisis globally. The importance of what we are doing is underlined by the need for the energy transition and the need to improve our domestic energy resilience. That is why we need to see more renewables and to roll out Rolls-Royce small modular reactors urgently and take a lead globally on that.

My right hon. Friend talks about household support. What does he think President Trump was thinking about the impact that this situation would have on businesses and the humble motorist?

My hon. Friend was obviously a precocious five-year-old in 1979, with a great knowledge of and interest in politics. I will not speculate on the last part of his question, but what he said about the indiscriminate Iranian attacks is an important point to underline. The fundamental point he makes about driving forward with renewables, nuclear and all the things that get us off the markets is surely the lesson that we must all learn from this crisis.

I thank the Secretary of State for his update. I echo the calls for support for business and keeping an eye on the impact of this crisis on business. For areas like mine in North Yorkshire, off-grid gas and oil customers do not have the same protection as many other energy customers. Will he and his team focus have regard to those customers as this crisis evolves?

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his points about business and particularly about heating oil. It is a really important point, because people who are using heating oil are exposed to what is happening in the market. Obviously, it depends on when they restock their heating oil and, as I have said a number of times, how long the crisis continues, but he is right to raise that as an area we need to look at.

To follow on from that exact question, I, too, represent a very rural constituency, and there will be constituencies up and down the United Kingdom, particularly in Northern Ireland, that are heavily reliant on heating oil as our source of energy. Will the Secretary of State say what action will be taken in the medium and short term to take account of the price shocks? I have already had the chair of the parish council in Thurlton get in touch, along with many other constituents who are very worried about this price shock.

Obviously, we are in the first few days of this crisis, but the best thing I can say to my hon. Friend and hon. Members in all parts of the House who are concerned about this issue, and totally understandably so, is that we are very much aware of where the exposure is. The price cap is a guarantee, and I chose my words carefully when I said earlier that, for the vast majority of people, the price cap provides a guarantee for domestic consumers, bearing in mind that those using heating oil are more exposed. We will look at that issue. To go back to the wider point that I made, both the Chancellor and the Prime Minister have shown a determination to act on the cost of living crisis. Obviously, much of this depends on how long the crisis goes on, but the point is well taken.

I appreciate what the Minister has just said about heating oil, because 55% of households in Dwyfor Meirionnydd are off the gas grid. Many rely on alternative heating fuels, and they are not protected by the energy price cap. We also pay the highest standing charges of any region in the United Kingdom and are exposed to global market shocks, in the sense that deliveries can be late and prices are passed straight on. In the energy crisis triggered by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, off-grid households had to wait months longer for any support, but they did get a one-off alternative fuel payment of £200. Will the Secretary of State consider something similar to the alternative fuel payment at this time?

I will not speculate on that, but one of the important things that I have emphasised in all the calls I have had and the discussions in my Department is that we must learn the lessons from what was done right in the previous Government’s response to the Russia-Ukraine crisis and also from where there were challenges. That is one of the emphases I have placed on my conversations with our civil servants, businesses and, indeed, international partners. I have heard what the right hon. Lady has said on this issue and will definitely bear it in mind.

It is perfectly reasonable for Opposition parties to espouse the policy of reopening oil and gas fields; it is just the wrong policy, and there is no clearer example of that than a moment like this. The only way that we can generate energy independence is by accelerating our transition to renewable energy. With that in mind, I know that the Secretary of State is very much focused on onshore wind, offshore wind and solar, but will he think again about the Department’s policy on geothermal energy? Our first geothermal energy plant has just opened in Cornwall, and we have vast deposits of geothermal energy, which could be a really useful addition to the renewable energy mix.

First, let me celebrate the opening of the plant. Indeed, I sent a video celebrating it—I am sorry I could not be there, but I congratulated my hon. Friend on his brilliant advocacy. I accept the point he makes that we have to look at all the technologies at our disposal. One of the reasons I am very glad that Lord Whitehead has joined our Department is that, as my hon. Friend will know, he has a specific brief covering alternative technologies. My view is, if it can bring down bills and help to get us to cleaner power, we should absolutely go for it.

I fully accept the argument that energy independence will be enhanced by renewable energy and in particular by nuclear energy, but everyone seems to accept that we will continue to have some dependence on fossil fuels for a considerable period of time. Although it is discouraging to hear that no matter how much we extract from the North sea, it will not lower prices—that does sound rather a strange conclusion, but I am willing to accept that it is true—the fact is that if we are going to need such supplies for a considerable period of time, they may be cut off from other sources. Therefore, security of supply is an important element of the mix. Is that not obvious?

That is why we said in our manifesto that we would keep existing oil and gas fields open for their lifetime. Indeed, we did not just say it; we had a good dialogue with the industry, in which it said that one thing that would make existing oil and gas fields competitive was tiebacks to fields with new production. We listened and we accepted that.

I have great respect for the right hon. Gentleman; I think the issue he is adverting to is exploration licences, because the North sea is a declining basin. Obviously, there are tax matters in this regard, which are for the Chancellor, but all the evidence is that exploration licences are entirely marginal to production, and the average time from exploration to production is 10 years, as I said earlier. On the 10-year view, the most important thing we can do for our energy security by far—by many multiples—is to drive towards clean power, which I think he supports and which is the centrepiece of our strategy.

Order. Before the next question, may I remind Members to keep their questions, and perhaps also the answers, short?

I appreciate the Secretary of State’s incredibly important update to the House, especially on energy security. There have been reports in the media of PetroChina being barred from all exports of diesel and gasoline by the Chinese Government. With PetroChina’s co-ownership of the Grangemouth import terminal, and following its role in the closure of Scotland’s only oil refinery last year, what assurances can the Secretary of State provide my constituents on the security of imported supply coming through Grangemouth?

We use negligible amounts of fuel from China, and I can absolutely reassure my hon. Friend, and indeed his constituents, on security of supply.

On nuclear, I note that, had small modular reactors gone to Oldbury, Wylfa would still be available for other options to reduce our fossil fuel dependence. I want to ask about small businesses. On top of a rising tax burden, the fear of further energy spikes causes small businesses in my constituency, particularly energy-intensive ones such as hospitality and manufacturing, to fear for their survival. Will the Secretary of State introduce new measures to support them?

The hon. Lady raises an important issue. Indeed, the Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Chris McDonald)—who has briefly left the Chamber—is also a Minister at the Department for Business and Trade and has a particular focus on how we can help small businesses to get better deals. Better regulation of the deals they get is one area where Ofgem will have a role in what was previously an un-regulated or under-regulated market. On the wider point about the impact of the crisis on small businesses, I reiterate to the hon. Lady, by way of reassurance, what I have said to other hon. Members. The Government are absolutely focused on the impact of the crisis on households and indeed businesses, and we will not hesitate to act.

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and for the Government’s laser focus on renewable energy in England and Wales. Does he agree that this should deliver basically a triple whammy for us? We will not be at the mercy of foreign states for our energy, bills for consumers will go down and, finally, we will reduce the impact of the biggest threat to our planet, which is climate change.

My hon. Friend is so right. I talk to partners around the world, including in Europe, which the Liberal Democrats asked about, and elsewhere, and it is interesting that so many other countries now take this approach. The case for renewables was always a climate case, but for so many it is now as much an energy security case, because they are in a similar place to us: they are price takers, not price makers.

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. As soon as the first missiles were launched over Iran, those working in the energy sector were already warning that prices would escalate. The public can little afford the price gouging that took place when Russia invaded Ukraine, so what steps will the Secretary of State take to ensure that any rise is absolutely necessary and will not result in greater profits for certain people and companies? What consideration will be given to implementing energy schemes to help working families meet the cost?

The hon. Gentleman speaks with great eloquence on these issues on behalf of his constituents and others. He is absolutely right to say that, in a situation like this, everyone has a responsibility. The Government have a responsibility, and private companies have a responsibility too—he is right to make them aware of that. On the wider question about the impact on families, it is important that the Government are vigilant about the steps we can take to help people.

One of the first lessons from the Russia-Ukraine war, and now from the war in the middle east, is that oil refineries and fossil fuel infrastructure are primary targets and that energy prices are now part of war strategy. Our race to renewables is important not just here in the UK, but around the world. The price of Urals crude has nearly reached the price of other crude oils, and we need to ensure that other countries are not reliant on Russian oil being delivered by the shadow fleet. Is the Secretary of State working with other countries to ensure that they are taking the same path towards the renewable transformation that we are taking?

My hon. Friend speaks with great eloquence on these issues, and he is absolutely right. As I said earlier, it is striking that so many countries now talk about this as an energy security issue. For the 80-plus countries that supported the road map for the transition away from fossil fuels at COP30, it was as much about energy security, about their own situation, about bills and about their fear of exposure as it was about the long-term threat that we face from the climate crisis, as crucial as that is.

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement, which I read and listened to very closely. Is it fair to summarise the Secretary of State’s statement by saying that he is not going to do anything differently as a result of the conflict in Iran? I listened to and read the statement very closely, and it does not appear to me that we are going to change anything. It was more of a series of things that we are doing already.

No, I do not think that is right at all. The truth about these crises is that it is incredibly important that the Government look at everything we can do, particularly to help address the impact on families and businesses, as I said a number of times in my statement. I reassure the hon. Gentleman and the House that this Government have the right strategy on energy policy. The lesson we all need to learn is that exposure to fossil fuel markets is dangerous for the country, and the best thing we can do is speed up our drive to renewables and, indeed, to nuclear. The more help that he can give to support that, the better.

I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement—all I can say is more power to his renewable elbow. During my time in Parliament, we have gone through various crises. The price of oil and gas goes up, our constituents and businesses pay higher bills, and the Conservatives learn nothing. They do not realise that the only way to provide secure and cheap energy is to have a secure supply here at home. None the less, we are stuck with oil and gas in the meantime. May I urge my right hon. Friend to be open to assisting our constituents and businesses if they see a severe spike in their energy bills?

Order. Before the Secretary of State responds, let me say that I must conclude this session in around 15 minutes. Questions must be shorter and the answers just as sharp.

I am glad to hear that my elbow is renewable, and I agree with my hon. Friend that we must be willing to act on behalf of his constituents and others.

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. Households, businesses and charities in North West Leicestershire have highlighted some immediate pressures on the cost of heating oil and fuel costs in recent days. Does the Secretary of State agree that energy security across our country is vital and that cheap, clean power is key to delivering that security, so will he a share what additional work he will be doing to secure that for families and businesses in North West Leicestershire and beyond?

My hon. Friend is right to raise the issue of heating oil. As I have said a number of times, it is an important issue and is very much on our radar. On her wider point, she is absolutely right.

The Secretary of State is right to say that, because of our reliance on oil and gas, we are a price taker, not a price maker. We are exposed, and families in Burnley, Padiham and Brierfield are worried. Will he continue to strengthen our home-grown sovereign energy supplies and production to keep driving down energy bills? Given the potential for future wholesale price volatility, will he look at getting suppliers in the room again to reduce standing charges, which people see as unfair, regressive and unrelated to their energy use?

Somebody asked me about standing charges earlier, and I neglected to respond. One important thing that we did was transfer the warm home discount to unit rates, which helped make a difference in bearing down on standing charges. I reassure my hon. Friend, and many of his constituents and others who are concerned about this issue—I talk to Martin Lewis and others about such matters—that we continue to look at it.

I really thank the Secretary of State for all that he is doing, but at times like this, we think about our most vulnerable constituents. Although the energy price cap will protect them for now, we worry about the longer term, not least moving into next winter. Can my right hon. Friend say what he is doing on social prescriptions and social tariffs to ensure that we protect the most vulnerable constituents?

An important decision that we took was to extend the warm home discount not only for this winter, but for five years ahead, to give an assurance to 6 million people, including those in my hon. Friend’s constituency, that they would have protection. She speaks so well for the most vulnerable in our society and in her constituency. I reassure her that we know about people’s exposure and continue to look at all the measures that we can take to help them.

There is precious little good news around at the moment, but I may have some for the Secretary of State. I have listened to the contributions from those on the Opposition Benches, and I think I have discovered a new renewable energy source: the amount of hot air coming from that side of the House could surely heat 100 homes. At a time when prices are spiking and profits are about to rise, does the Secretary of State think that his constituents in Doncaster North would welcome it if we did what the shadow Minister suggested and cut the energy profits levy? My constituents in Lichfield, Burntwood and the villages would not appreciate it if we let companies off like that.

My hon. Friend makes his point in a very eloquent and amusing way. It is so important to recognise that crises like this show that gambling on low fossil fuel prices is dangerous, because the impacts of geopolitical instability on his constituents and those across the country are so great.

I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement, although I will gently disagree with one point. He said that he believes the Conservatives have failed to learn, or somehow forgotten, the lessons from Ukraine. I think that it is worse than that, and nothing more than short-term opportunism. They hoped that nothing like Ukraine would happen again and they forgot to learn the lessons, so bills were driven up and significant damage was done to our economy. Does he agree that the Conservatives’ short-term opportunism on energy security and national security is not in the long-term interest of our country?

I agree with my hon. Friend. It is incumbent on all of us to tell people, on the basis of the evidence, what we should be doing as a country. Today we have heard from Members of different parties a recognition that gambling on fossil fuels is incredibly dangerous.

Today’s statement is a stark reminder that energy security is national security and economic security, and those who oppose clean, green British power are handing a gift to people who wish to do us harm. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that it is only the British interest that determines energy policy?

My hon. Friend puts it incredibly well: this is about clean, home-grown power that we control. We need to get off the roller coaster of fluctuations in international markets, which does such damage to families across the country.

At a time when the UK is increasingly dependent on and exposed to internationally traded LNG, does delaying the oil and gas price mechanism not risk reducing investment in domestic supply exactly when global markets are least stable?

I agree with my hon. Friend that driving to renewables and clean, home-grown power is crucial. I would also say, as I know she takes an interest in these things, that the North sea continues to play an important role in our energy mix and will do so for decades to come.

It is interesting to note that, for the duration of this statement and the question and answer session, there has been zero participation from the SNP and Reform, which goes to show exactly how much both parties care about Scotland’s energy security.

I appreciate that the Secretary of State will not be able to give an in-depth response at the Dispatch Box, but can he give any update on Project Willow at Grangemouth? Specifically, I want to know about the future jobs coming to the town and any potential Government ownership to secure our industrial security and Scotland’s energy sovereignty.

My hon. Friend is a very important advocate for his constituents and, indeed, for Project Willow. He will know that we have made a number of announcements about Grangemouth in recent months, but I can assure him that we will continue to drive forward on Project Willow. The Prime Minister has set out that £200 million will be available from the National Wealth Fund. We continue to work with private industry, because we are determined to create a future for Grangemouth and its communities.

This will be a worrying time not only for households, but for the energy- intensive businesses in my constituency. Last year, we lost soda ash production from Northwich after 150 years, in part due to the high energy costs. What support does my right hon. Friend intend to provide businesses both to get through this crisis and into the future, so that we can ensure they stay viable and competitive?

The step forward we are taking is to give more help to the energy-intensives, both this April and when we get to help 7,000 businesses next April. However, I acknowledge—as I did to, I think, one of the Conservative Members—that there is further to go on helping businesses. Energy UK and the CBI have formed a joint partnership looking at these issues, and we want to work with them. As always, one challenge is the cost of action, but we recognise the issue that my hon. Friend has raised.

The statement, for which I am very grateful, really drives home the importance of energy security and the move to renewables, but food security is equally important. In my constituency of South Derbyshire, we have had a plethora of applications for battery energy storage systems and solar farms, because we have a close connection to two grids. I am not saying that we do not need that, but will the Secretary of State meet me, my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) and other members of the Labour rural research group to discuss the benefits of a local area energy plan?

My hon. Friend speaks very well on these issues, and I am sure the Minister for Energy will meet the group’s members and talk to them about these issues. As she will know, we operate under guidance from the last Government about avoiding the best available land where at all possible. Even on the most ambitious plans, solar would occupy a very small fraction of agricultural land, although we had the largest ever solar auction in allocation round 7—

How much?

Actually, 5 GW, which is really good.

How much will that cost?

I will tell the hon. Member how much: at the cheapest, about £60 per MWh, which is far cheaper than building new gas. The fundamental point of this statement is that we will carry on with our drive to clean, home-grown power, because that is the right thing for our national interest.