Oil and Gas

Alistair Strathern Excerpts

Tuesday 24th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Alistair Strathern (Hitchin) (Lab)]

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

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

[Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)]

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

[Alistair Strathern]

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

[Mr Snowden]

rose—

[Alistair Strathern]

I am going to make some progress.

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

[Graham Stuart]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Alistair Strathern]

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Robbie Moore]

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

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

[Alistair Strathern]

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

[Robbie Moore]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Alistair Strathern]

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

[Gregory Stafford]

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

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

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