Oil and Gas

Lizzi Collinge Excerpts

Tuesday 24th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

[Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)]

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

[Lizzi Collinge]

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

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

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

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

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

[Harriet Cross]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Lizzi Collinge]

I would like to finish.

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Gareth Snell]

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

[Lizzi Collinge]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Gareth Snell]

Very, very briefly.

[Lizzi Collinge]

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

[Gareth Snell]

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

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