Energy Markets

Harriet Cross Excerpts

Thursday 5th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)]

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?

[Ed Miliband]

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—