Fracking Ban

Richard Tice Excerpts

Tuesday 15th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the potential merits of a full ban on fracking.

I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for selecting this debate and giving me the opportunity to lead it. In December 2025, the Minister for Energy told this House that:

“the evidence base is not there at the moment to suggest that low-volume hydraulic fracturing activities have the same associated risks as fracking for shale gas.”—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 10 December 2025; Vol. 777, c. 151WH.]

I am leading this debate because I want to challenge that statement and bring the Government’s attention to why I and many others believe that the understanding of fracking that the Minister referred to is not suited for purpose. I want this House to consider the evidence for that argument.

Let me begin with the point that matters most: we do not have a ban on fracking in this country; we have a moratorium, and the two are not the same. A moratorium is a pause, and a pause can be lifted. The previous Energy Secretary told the Labour party conference last autumn that this Government would legislate to ban fracking for good. This Government have been in power for two years, yet I see no indication that a full ban is due. Maybe the Minister will care to correct me, but it seems that this Government are not taking decisive action to stop all fracking activity.

The reason this activity continues is because of a legal loophole, and it is worth being precise about it. The Petroleum Act 1998 defines fracking by the volume of fluid injected: more than 1,000 cubic metres at any single stage, or more than 10,000 cubic metres in total. Stay below those figures and the moratorium simply does not apply. The intent is identical to fracking, and the technique is identical—a company injects fluid at high pressure to fracture rock and release the gas inside—but because the volume is lower, the law treats it as something else entirely and waves it through.

At Burniston, on the edge of the North York moors, Europa Oil & Gas has proposed exactly that—a so-called proppant squeeze—at volumes designed to sit just under the threshold. In correspondence obtained under freedom of information, the company itself referred to the operation as fracking, yet in its planning material it insists that it is not. The label changes, but the drilling rig does not. The Reform Mayor of Scarborough said, “frack ahead”, although the local council voted unanimously against the plans, and the Secretary of State did not choose to overrule that. However, I am concerned about the direction that this is taking.

Before I move on, I want to insert a small caveat: I am supportive of the geothermal sector. Geothermal is a genuinely renewable source of energy. A small number of geothermal cases employ low-volume hydraulic simulation. My case for a permanent ban asks for fracking to be classified by intent, and would therefore ensure that geothermal was not under threat. This is important because the geothermal industry has great potential in this country that has yet to be realised, despite being extensively used in other European countries. I want to be clear that low-volume fracking—as a form of fracking—is something entirely different.

[Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)]

Could the hon. Lady try to clarify that a little? Take an event with a seismicity of one—for ease of maths—with a hydraulic frack for the energy treasure of gas; how is that different from the seismicity of one on a geothermal site? It is the same seismicity. It is the same event. It is scarily called an earthquake, but it is not, for all intents and purposes—it is about the equivalent of moving rapidly from behind one’s desk on a chair. What is the difference between the two?

[Claire Young]

I would like to clarify that. I am not suggesting that we should measure and judge these things by seismicity, because that is not something that can be predicted in advance. The point is that in one case fossil fuels are being extracted, but that is not the effect with geothermal—it is a different process with a different effect.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)]

Well, this is a fascinating debate, full of nonsense and misinformation. Let us just set the context of what we are talking about, shall we? It is not actually a debate about fracking. It turns out that it is a debate about gas—shale gas, for example. I urge hon. Members in this House and those watching to just ask themselves why everybody in this country is arguing and distressed and concerned about the price of electricity and energy. Why is it that the price of gas in the United States is a mere 20% of the price of gas here in the United Kingdom? Well, I can tell hon. Members: it is because for the last 20-plus years, yes, the United States has been enjoying the benefits of shale gas, which it has extracted through one method, which is called fracking or hydraulic fracking.

[Wera Hobhouse]

Would the hon. Member give us some figures or comparisons of how much fracked fuel we can produce in this country compared with the United States?

[Richard Tice]

I am delighted to assist the hon. Lady, who is clearly not informed whatsoever. We have somewhere between 30 years and 50 years of gas for the whole of the United Kingdom available onshore. In Lincolnshire alone—

[Wera Hobhouse]

Fracked gas?

[Richard Tice]

Yes, exactly. It may pay the hon. Member to listen. In Lincolnshire alone, there is some 10 years of shale gas—a decade’s-worth—for the United Kingdom, and that could generate thousands and thousands of jobs.

The context is very simple. In the United States, fracking has been transformational to the US economy. It is the reason that it has much lower gas prices and much lower electricity prices. In Lincolnshire alone, as I was just explaining, the density of shale gas in the Gainsborough trough is believed to be double that of the most productive shale gas in Pennsylvania of the Marcellus shale. The opportunity is enormous.

Even if hon. Members were to disagree with me completely, which I suspect may be the case, a middle ground might be to say, “Before we make a seismic decision, the answer might be to do a proper test, which could be independently monitored, supervised and checked for, let’s say, a year, or two years”—I am a generous man, of course—“and that can then be verified.” We could do that with a number of different wells using a number of different techniques, because there are indeed numerous different extraction techniques depending on the depth to which one goes. Some 11 techniques can be counted, including low-volume hydraulic fracking, high-volume hydraulic fracking, and acidic oscillation—on and on the list goes. Why would we be so dogmatic, so stubborn and, bluntly, so negligent against the financial interests and prosperity of all our citizens that we would refuse to use this glorious energy treasure that has made the United States so wealthy?

The potential is enormous: tens and tens of billions of investment into our community; tens and tens and tens, and tens and tens, more billions of tax revenue potential, with enormous community benefits.

[Martin Wrigley]

I understand that the hon. Gentleman thought the summer, while being the hottest on record, was more of a millionaire’s paradise than the awful situation it was for many in our country. Does he not understand the science of climate change that he is encouraging us to continue to aggravate, or is he simply a flat-earther entirely?

[Richard Tice]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution, but we have to get real here: the climate has changed for millions of years, and it will continue. There is not a scrap of evidence that all of a sudden, we get to net zero, which is a new concept of about a decade, and that will stop climate change. For example, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—

[Claire Young]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Richard Tice]

I will come back to the hon. Lady. I am doing well; I am in full flow.

The panel said in its, I think, sixth report that even if we got to net zero tomorrow, it would take somewhere between 200 years in one context and 1,000 years in the other context to make any difference whatsoever to sea level rise—and it did say that with high confidence, which is reassuring. Maybe the smarter thing to do is to adapt to climate change rather than think we can stop it.

Let me come back to the essence of the debate, which is the importance of the decision as to whether we as a nation are prepared to impoverish ourselves by writing off one of the greatest treasure opportunities we have. Almost any other nation in the world that has this energy treasure—quite rightly, quite sensibly, financially and productively—uses that energy treasure. But the mood of this place is, “No, we’re going to impoverish ourselves. We’re not going to use that treasure. We’re going to make people ever poorer because we’re going to insist on putting all our bets on renewable energy.” We keep being told that renewable energy is going to be cheaper and cheaper, but we now know from the experts that even if the price of gas goes to zero, by the time of the next general election our energy bills will be higher because the cost of renewables is going up and up. And guess what? When the wind does not blow and the sun does not shine, which occasionally happens here in the United Kingdom, we need back-up—it is basic common sense.

[Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

The hon. Gentleman has made extraordinary claims about the reserves of shale gas. There are currently no commercially proven reserves of shale gas in the UK, and yet he is suggesting that there are tens of billions at hand just to be plucked. The evidence actually shows that the cost of renewables is going down constantly. I ask him to pay courtesy to the convention of the House that we speak truth in this place and to cite his sources.

[Richard Tice]

Absolutely, I will cite the sources. Look at everybody’s energy bills: they are going up and up, and—

[Dr Chowns]

No, the sources for your claims about reserves—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. The hon. Lady did point out the conventions and courtesies of the House. She has to ask the hon. Member if he will give way. It might be helpful for everybody if I add that interventions should be through the Chair. Please do not face the back of the Chamber. It makes it incredibly hard for the microphones to pick up comments and, indeed, it is quite discourteous to the Chair to turn your back on me.

[Richard Tice]

I am most grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker.

The hon. Lady asks a fair question as to the evidence. The evidence is from the experts I have just cited, who say that even if the price of gas goes to zero, our energy bills are going up and up. The next bit of evidence—

[Dr Chowns]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Richard Tice]

I will carry on, because I am in full flow.

[Dr Chowns]

I want to clarify the question I actually asked.

[Richard Tice]

I give way to the hon. Lady.

[Dr Chowns]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I am requesting that he cites his sources for the claims he has made as to the reserves of shale gas in this country.

[Richard Tice]

I was just coming on to that. The British Geological Survey has, for example, made clear estimates that there are vast sums.

[Dr Chowns]

No!

[Richard Tice]

No, there have been tests into the Gainsborough trough, which is why I made the claim about the density. Then, of course, there is the evidence of successful businesspeople who invested hundreds of millions of pounds because they had done the geological work and realised that there is a huge opportunity, and they are still there. That is the evidence, because when people are prepared to invest sums of money, we know that they have done the research.

I come back to this point. It is gross negligence of the highest order—frankly, probably of a criminal order—to refuse to even try, and to not even say, “Okay Richard, I disagree with you, but let’s have an independent test over a couple of years at a couple of different sites, using a couple of different techniques.” Surely that would be the middle ground, because in the event that those on my side of the debate are correct and those on the other side of the debate are incorrect, we would then have taken advantage of this great opportunity.

[Wera Hobhouse]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way again just once more?

[Richard Tice]

I am delighted to give way to the hon. Lady.

[Wera Hobhouse]

In the spirit of co-operation, even if we did this test, could he explain the damage and disruption that would be caused to communities in the UK if we tried on the scale that the US has done, where there are vast amounts of empty country with no people disrupted by fracking? Can he explain how that compares and how disruptive it would be for our communities in the UK?

[Richard Tice]

I would be delighted to. The hon. Lady makes an excellent point. There are some 20 million people in the United States who live within 1 mile of fracking pads, shale gas pads or whatever one might wish to call them. I have seen the numerous nodding donkeys—oil drilling wells—in my county of Lincolnshire. You would not know they are there because they are hidden behind trees. Contrary to what some Members have said in the debate, the reality is that once a shale gas well is drilled, you barely know it exists. A well is a couple of metres high and there can be 10 pads on a site that is the size of about two football pitches—behind trees, so no one would even know that they are there.

The misinformation, the false information and the deliberate nonsense being peddled is depriving this great country of the opportunity to reduce our bills. If we carry on as we are, then our bills will be going up and up and up. Indeed, just today, we have heard that the forecast increase in bills for, I think, January will be at least 15%. We should at least have the courage to explore some alternatives.

I need to deal with the whole issue of seismicity—some people call it “earthquakes”—which is a very scary-sounding thing. At the Preston New Road site near Blackpool, there was a limit of just 0.5 on the Richter scale. Now, because the Richter scale is logarithmic, 0.5 is the equivalent of one of the Clerks of the House gently moving their chair backwards and standing up as they leave at the end of the day—that is 0.5. Hon. Members might like to imagine standing up with a melon in their hand, holding it to shoulder height and then dropping it in front of them—that would be about 1.5 on the Richter scale. A bus driving past your house would be in the order of 2.5, which is about the equivalent of the sort of limits applied to construction sites. We need some appropriate context and understanding as to the realities of the situation.

The opportunities here must be worth at least exploring. I fully accept that there are those who have a different view to me on issues around renewables, but we can all agree that diversity can be a wonderful thing—diversity of technologies and sources. Maybe one day—I am 62, Madam Deputy Speaker, so maybe after I am long dead—renewables might be cheaper, but at the moment that is not the evidence. The evidence in the United States is that shale gas is driving bills all the way down.

[Alison Hume]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that he is somewhat a voice in the wilderness? Fracking is unpopular with Reform voters—they do not want it. I am speaking in this debate to represent my constituents in Scarborough and Whitby, but can he honestly say that he is doing the same for his in Boston and Skegness?

[Richard Tice]

I can absolutely say that to the hon. Lady and to the good constituents across Lincolnshire. Rather than arrogantly in this place just thinking, “We’re going to ban this process across the whole of the United Kingdom,” given that the new Prime Minister is keen on devolution, maybe this decision could be devolved to individual counties that have the energy treasure? Maybe there will be the joy of Lincolnshire gas for Lincolnshire jobs for Lincolnshire growth? It is like a patriotic dream in the great county of Lincolnshire.

[Chris Kane]

If such a decision were devolved and, even in a devolved world, the entire country said, “We do not want fracking in all of our devolved places,” how would the hon. Gentleman feel about it then?

[Richard Tice]

At least I would have put forward my argument to everybody and people would have had an individual choice, as opposed to what feels to me like an overarching umbrella of “No! You naughty, naughty children—you must not consider this,” even though the evidence around world is that, actually, where there is cheap gas, guess what? There is higher GDP growth per person.

It is so important that people understand this. In the ’80s and ’90s, our energy use per person increased by some 20%, but in the last 20 years our energy use per person has tragically declined by some 20%. Meanwhile, our GDP per person has collapsed: in the ’80s and ’90s growth in GDP was over 3% per person per year, but now it is just about 0.5% per person per year. Maybe there is a direct link between the growth in electricity and energy prices because of renewables in the past 10 to 15 years and the decline in growth?

Before this House considers a full ban, I feel that it has not properly explored all the options and its ability to do an impact assessment—a popular phrase in this place. Let us have an impact assessment by having some independently monitored and supervised shale gas wells using different techniques and at different depths. With that full information, this House could then come back and make a decision to devolve or to make a national decision. I will conclude there.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Chowns]

Fossil fuels are traded globally. If we open up new production of fossil fuels, the reality is that that will do nothing for bills, do almost nothing for energy security and be a complete distraction from the investments we must make in the transition to the clean, green, renewable energy future that is our only hope of a sustainable economy not just in the long term, but in the short and medium terms. These are the industries of the future, and people who argue that we should continue to invest in typewriters during the era of the personal computer or continue to invest in horses and carriages during the era of the car are simply stuck in the past. We cannot continue to have our heads in the sand.

[Richard Tice]

Talking of having heads in the sand, I think the hon. Lady has just agreed that it would be better to send our money overseas, send our skills overseas and send our jobs overseas, and to literally be impoverished in a tent on a sandbag with our heads in the sand. Is that really the future she wants?

[Dr Chowns]

No, that is a complete mischaracterisation of my argument. We know, for example, that Jackdaw would generate 27 jobs—the number of people who fit on the top of a double-decker bus.

[Richard Tice]

Seriously?

[Dr Chowns]

Yes, seriously. I can give the hon. Member the reference, unlike for the extraordinary statistics he cited in his speech, which apparently have no basis in actual evidence. Fundamentally, we have to stop pouring fossil fuel on the fire of the climate crisis, and that means we need a full ban on fracking.

[Dr Chowns]

It is indeed true that there is considerable public subsidy for oil and gas, as well as revenues from the windfall taxes. As the hon. Member for Alloa and Grangemouth pointed out, the fossil fuel companies are making tens of billions of pounds in profit, which is raked in from consumers.

Fundamentally, renewables are the cheap, clean, green energy of the future, and we need to shift in that direction as quickly as possible. We are here talking about fracking, but there is no commercially viable shale gas reserve in the entirety of the UK.

[Richard Tice]

Nonsense!

[Dr Chowns]

No, the argument that there is commercially viable production is a nonsense. The hon. Member should look at the information from the British Geological Survey.

[Richard Tice]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Dr Chowns]

I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman and several other people, so I will move to my conclusion.

Fundamentally, we are living in a burning world. The 11 hottest years on record were the past 11 years. The three hottest years on record were the past three years. The trajectory is going up and up, and this is not just a question of graphs on paper and reports from the World Meteorological Organisation; we are feeling it in our communities. The Prime Minister, when he considers decisions on things like fracking, should listen to communities in places such as Stourbridge, West Sussex and Stoke-on-Trent, where people have had their homes burned by wildfires that have been supercharged by the climate change that is already built in. It would be utterly irresponsible to pour yet more fuel on the fire of climate crisis.

We need to recognise the reality that is hitting us in the face: a barrelling and accelerating climate crisis. We need to do everything we can to change direction, and the very least of those things has to be a full ban on fracking. Can the Minister confirm that when the energy independence Bill comes to this House after the recess, it will include a fulfilment of the Government’s previous promise to implement a full and statutory ban on fracking that cannot simply be overturned by ministerial diktat? Will he apply the ban to existing licences? We have to leave fossil fuels in the ground and supercharge our transition to the green, clean energy revolution, which is the only fundamental basis for a sustainable and prosperous future for all of the UK.

--- Later in debate ---

[Harriet Cross]

After that very long intervention, we finally got to the point. We are not opposed to net zero; we are opposed to a 2050 net zero target, which makes the country weaker and poorer and costs jobs, particularly in my constituency in north-east Scotland.

Returning to the principles that I was talking about, it is right that, where possible, countries utilise their own resources. That is a fundamental part of a country’s national security. Whether it is jobs, investment, industrial capability or resource security, ensuring a domestic supply of crucial materials and products should be a concern for all Governments. That is becoming ever more pressing in a world that is increasingly uncertain, and where the flow of goods and products is becoming less predictable than we have known for decades.

The second principle, which I think only one Member touched on today, is market forces. It is not for us sitting here to tell the market whether an industry is commercially viable. Private companies with private money or bank financing looking to invest in a range of competing opportunities will decide that. The reason I mention this is relevant, because whether fracking is or is not banned is only half the story. If it is permitted but companies cannot make it viable, it will not happen, and that is a genuine concern. The amount of reserves we have in the UK and the viability of producing them remain an open question.

[Richard Tice]

On that point, surely the fact that companies have already invested more than £200 million in the potential for shale gas onshore proves that they believe the reserves are very considerable.

[Harriet Cross]

As I have said, private companies will invest where they see opportunities. They will risk their money how they want, and it is up to them to either gain or lose in the investments that they make.

A secure domestic supply of gas is a crucial consideration when it comes to our energy security. I want to see the UK safeguarded with a domestic supply of gas, which we use and need every day. However, there is a viable gas source that does not need onshore fracking, a source that has been producing in the North sea and safely entering our gas grid for decades. Today we are discussing whether fracking should be banned, but we should be more concerned about the Government’s hostile policies when it comes to North sea oil and gas production.

Let us take Jackdaw, a gasfield that could produce enough gas to power 1.4 million homes in the UK this winter—about 6% of our gas needs. Those who are worried about onshore fracking should reflect on the fact that there is a choice here, because they cannot be against all sources of gas. Would they prefer gas from Jackdaw or another North sea gasfield, gas from onshore fracked resources, or imports of liquefied natural gas? The option is not “no gas”; it is just a question of where the gas comes from.

--- Later in debate ---

[Martin McCluskey]

I thank my hon. Friend for her question. In her introduction to the debate, the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate raised the point about geothermal. The specific issues relating to high-intensity hydraulic fracturing that we have seen have been in shale, not in the types of fracturing used in conventional oil and gas, which are also used in geothermal. There has been some division across the House this afternoon: there was a suggestion from the Liberal Democrat Benches that we use a definition linked only to oil and gas, thus keeping geothermal out of it; there were suggestions from elsewhere that a full ban may also impact on uses such as geothermal. That points to why we have to be careful and specific about what it is we are trying to achieve.

Low-volume hydraulic fracturing has been happening in the UK for decades. It has been used not just in respect of oil and gas but in the water industry and geothermal. In that time, there has been no clear evidence that it induces seismicity that can be felt on the surface. Low-volume hydraulic fracturing operations are routinely used in conventional oil and gas operations. They target different types of rocks, create fractures close to the wellbore and are typically short, single-stage operations, as opposed to the continuous fracturing characteristic of shale gas fracking.

In practical terms, those operations are limited in scale and purpose. They are designed to improve flow from an existing conventional reservoir, not to fracture large areas of shale rock. They do not involve the same high-volume, multi-stage process associated with shale gas fracking, and they have not produced the same evidence of induced seismicity. Furthermore, all such activities are subject to a robust regulatory regime.

The hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) spoke about safety. Operators must obtain planning permission, environmental permits and health and safety approvals before proceeding, covering issues such as groundwater protection, management of emissions, handling of fluids and waste, and monitoring requirements. Where health and safety approvals are required, operators must meet the standards expected for well integrity and operational safety. Planning processes also provide a route for local impacts to be considered before activities proceed. We recognise the strong interest that Members expressed in the Burniston application, for which the planning authority has now refused permission.

Let me be absolutely clear: there is no loophole and no hidden route by which shale gas fracking can resume. The evidence-based policy position is clear, the effective moratorium remains in place, and the Government will not issue new onshore licences in England, including those that could be used for fracking for shale gas. That is the reassurance that communities across the country are entitled to hear.

Finally, I will turn to the wider arguments sometimes made about energy security and domestic production. Some, like the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness, who spent his speech denying the climate science, suggest that fracking for shale gas would strengthen our energy independence or reduce consumer bills. However, oil and gas are traded on the international markets, as has been mentioned by a number of hon. Members, and increasing domestic production would not shield consumers from global price volatility.

[Richard Tice]

I just need to clarify for the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) that when I referred to nodding donkeys, I specifically said oil wells. I hope that helps him.

With regard to the price of gas, can the Minister explain why the wholesale price of gas in the United States is 80% cheaper than the wholesale price in the United Kingdom? That completely undermines what he has just said. The Minister has inadvertently misled the House, Madam Deputy Speaker.

[Martin McCluskey]

Absolutely not. As I said a moment ago, we are not the United States; we are not Pennsylvania or Texas. It is a different energy market. There is nothing to suggest that the extraction of shale gas in this country would reduce the cost of energy, just as there is no evidence to suggest that extracting more oil and gas from the North sea would reduce the cost of energy, if that is the point the hon. Gentleman was making.

Saudi East-West Oil Pipeline

Richard Tice Excerpts

Tuesday 15th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Martin McCluskey]

As I said in response to previous questions, we are exploiting the resources in the North sea; we are extracting oil and gas from it. We will make a decision on Rosebank and Jackdaw in due course, and we have a robust energy mix in this country. The right hon. Gentleman made the point himself about reliance on overseas sources of energy. We would still require production beyond oil and gas. That is why we are investing in renewables, be it wind or solar, all of which are helping to protect our energy security and our national security.

[Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)]

We are so lucky in this great country that we have enjoyed decades-worth of oil and gas—energy treasure—but we are so unlucky that we have an utterly clueless bunch of socialists not using this energy treasure. Will the Minister and the Government finally realise that the way to reduce our exposure to overseas fossil fuels is to use our own offshore, onshore and around the Falkland Islands? Let’s get some growth, let’s get some jobs and let’s grow the United Kingdom.

[Martin McCluskey]

I always enjoy it when Reform use “socialist” like it is a bad word and not a badge of honour. As I have said in response to previous questions, we are using the resources from the North sea and extracting oil and gas on a daily basis. That is part of our energy mix and will be for years to come.

Climate Change

Richard Tice Excerpts

Wednesday 24th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Katie White]

Let me just finish.

Back then, it often felt like a cause that sat at the margins of politics, rather than at its centre. Progress felt slow; success felt uncertain. If someone had told me that one day I would stand at this Dispatch Box I might have struggled to believe it, but what that journey reminds me of is that real change is rarely the work of one person, one Government or one political party. It happens because people keep building year after year, Government after Government, Parliament after Parliament. Eighteen years ago, this House came together to pass the world’s first climate change Act. Seven years ago, it came together again to make Britain the first major economy to legislate on net zero emissions. Different Prime Ministers, different Governments and different political traditions have all helped to write that story.

[Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Katie White]

I will just finish.

History has many authors. As a result of that shared effort, Britain was the first major economy to cut emissions by more than half, while growing its economy by more than 85% between 1990 and 2025. We have helped to inspire around 60 countries to adopt similar legislation and we have shown it is possible to combine climate action with economic growth, energy security and national prosperity.

At its best, this House has always been capable of looking beyond the pressures of the moment and acting in the interests of future generations. I believe this is one of those moments, so whatever our differences on the detail I hope we can recognise what this debate is really about: the kind of country we leave behind and whether we upgrade it while we have the chance. That is a legacy worth building together. I commend these orders and regulations to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Claire Coutinho]

The analysis that the hon. Gentleman points to refers to TIMES modelling. That is used for the baseline. A few pages away, its says that the TIMES modelling specifically does not look at the impact of jobs on the overall energy transition. It is in there in black and white.

The hon. Gentleman might desperately google it now in the Chamber, but the truth is that no Labour Members read and scrutinised the impact assessment properly because none of them cares. Let’s be honest: they are all here to read their boilerplate speeches, which will all be exactly the same, to virtue signal how much of a good person they are. That is the truth. Most of them come from climate NGOs and green lobby groups—the Minister does too, I am afraid—and they care more about ideology than evidence. How many of them have ever had to turn a profit for a living? How many have had to work out how to pay someone else’s wages? How many have had to consider all the costs that go into manufacturing and selling something in Britain?

The thing is, we could do this so differently. We are 1% of global emissions; 99% are happening elsewhere. Those countries are not persuaded by Britain driving itself into poverty while the Secretary of State preaches at them from his pulpit. In fact, they are asking themselves why they should follow the path that Britain is taking when we are such an obvious example of what not to do. We are a country that is making its energy scarce and expensive, and deindustrialising and impoverishing its own citizens.

What is the solution? First, we must reject decarbonisation by deindustrialisation. Therefore, we must measure the offshoring of emissions and get rid of the unilateral carbon tax and the stringent targets killing off British industry by repealing the Climate Change Act.

[Richard Tice]

Given that we have reduced our carbon emissions by some 54% since 1990, perhaps the shadow Secretary of State agrees with me that we have led the way and done our bit. It is now time for others to do theirs.

[Claire Coutinho]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. The question is, can we protect the environment, the economy and living standards? Is what the Government are proposing today going to help us do those things? I would argue that it is not. [Interruption.] Well, let’s talk about it: Labour Members will vote today to increase the cost of aviation and shipping when our competitors in Asia, the middle east and the US are not doing so. That is mad.

The first part of our plan is to save British industry. The second is to make electricity cheap. Just 10% of our emissions are in the electricity system; the vast majority are in transport, industry and buildings. Our electricity is clean. Does Labour even realise that? It is some of the cleanest electricity in the world. The problem is that it is too expensive and deterring electrification. I am not someone on the right who thinks that all clean tech is stupid, but I do think that cheap electricity and consumer choice should be king.

Thirdly, we should wholeheartedly embrace innovation and exports of British clean tech, whether that is the next generation of nuclear, software or consumer products. Finally, we should pay much more heed to nature—something that we were proud to do but this Government are much less keen on. Funnily enough, they are much more attracted to net zero than nature. Perhaps that is because the former gives them unlimited powers to dictate to people what they can and cannot do, and to tax people who do things that they do not like. That is, after all, a socialist’s dream.

I would bet everything that our approach is better for the British economy and the environment, but it would mean wresting this agenda away from the incredibly well-funded green lobby groups with vested interests, who provide these figures that Members on the Labour Benches all merrily cite without having actually read the reports. And, frankly, they do not have the balls to do it—they do not even have the balls to take on their out-of-control Secretary of State.

I will end on this. The public keep being promised cheaper energy and more jobs, yet those things are not materialising. If people want to know why Governments keep failing, they should look at this impact assessment, which I am afraid is mumbo-jumbo that does not tell the reader what the target will do to the cost of food or energy, or the cost of business. They should consider the fact that parliamentarians are prepared to wave it through today. The Minister did not even take any questions. This is meant to be a debate in which we scrutinise these important decisions, but she did not want to answer any questions.

Who in the public voted for this? Who in the public voted for more expensive food, energy bills and boilers? Who voted to increase our goods imports from China? Let us be very clear: this legislation takes control away from Ministers and gives it to civil servants, unaccountable bodies and activists who will tell Ministers that they cannot prioritise the cost of living or the economy, even if they were elected to do so.

The Energy Secretary might not be in post for much longer, but the legacy of his target will be to make us poorer and weaker. Ministers will be more bound by red tape and less able to deliver on their promises, but it does not have to be that way. This is the moment to take back control for our constituents and say that Ministers should not be bound by legislation waved through with no scrutiny—by Ministers who will not take any questions. Ministers should be bound by the democratic promises they have made to the electorate. That is how we fix this. That is how we put our constituents back in the driving seat, and that is why Members should vote to reject this legislation today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Perkins]

That is a very good place to start, because the shadow Secretary of State suggested that the Climate Change Committee has attempted to silence her. It has not attempted to silence her. What it attempted to do, on a point of fact, was inform her of the basis on which her letter to the committee was wrong. This was not a matter of opinion; the Climate Change Committee was simply explaining to her where the cost of electricity comes from. My hon. Friend makes a good point.

The shadow Secretary of State talked about transparency, which is interesting because the fact that we are having a debate on the seventh carbon budget is completely different from what happened on the fourth, fifth and sixth carbon budgets. The sixth carbon budget, under the previous Government, was approved in 17 minutes in a Delegated Legislation Committee, far away from public scrutiny. These are crucial matters. I agree with the shadow Secretary of State that they will have wide-ranging impacts on all of us, and they should be debated on the Floor of the House. I welcome that this Government, unlike the previous one, have brought this forward and reserved time to debate it.

In debating this order, it is so disappointing that the political consensus that previously existed has evaporated. It lasted from the Labour Government’s seminal introduction of the Climate Change Act 2008, which was strengthened and updated in 2019 by the Conservative Government. With the introduction of the Climate Change Act and the pathway to net zero, Britain was world-leading in our ambition. The approach was so admired that, far from what the shadow Secretary of State said, it was copied by many other legislatures. How tragic that the Opposition should choose to jettison one of the greatest achievements in their 14 years in government in the face of a threat from the climate deniers in Reform.

The approach pursued by successive Governments is working. Since 1990, the UK’s greenhouse gas emissions have been cut by 54%. At the same time, the UK economy has grown.

[Richard Tice]

Will the hon. Gentleman just answer a very simple question, as this is in the Labour manifesto and the Secretary of State bangs on about it week after week? When will energy bills and electricity bills come down?

[Mr Perkins]

There are many different things that impact energy prices. We have seen £150 taken off the price of bills. I think there is more that can be done to reduce electricity prices, and I will come to that.

The reality is that the hon. Gentleman is an advocate of a greater reliance on gas and oil. If anything is explained to us, it is that we have no control over energy prices while we are reliant on gas and oil. Everything that has happened since 2022—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman puts his head in his hands. I say to him that the amount that the Government spent in 2022 to cover the cost of the increase in energy prices caused by the start of the Ukraine war was greater than the cost of everything that we will do on net zero between now and 2050. That is the reality: £44 billion pounds was spent propping up people’s gas, electricity and fuel bills at the time of that crisis. That is why we need to get away from that dependence.

As I was saying, since 1990, the UK economy has grown, partly powered by the green economy, which last year was found to be growing at three times the rate of the rest of the economy, providing jobs and growth across the country. The most recent CCC assessment found that the UK remains among the leading group of countries that demonstrate sustained emissions reductions. The transition is the pro-business choice. This year’s CBI and Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit report on the net zero economy found that green businesses and their supply chains generated £105 billion in gross value added for the UK economy, as well as supporting over 20,000 small businesses and a million jobs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

We should add that water shortages are a real cause of conflict. Many communities will be displaced. Anybody who is worried about migration now should be deeply worried about migration in the future, because people will simply be displaced—

[Richard Tice]

Shut the borders!

[Wera Hobhouse]

They will come, and you will shut the borders, but we will have wars over water shortages. We absolutely will. It sounds alarmist, but we can do something about it. We should not put our heads in the sand. Does my hon. Friend agree?

--- Later in debate ---

[Pippa Heylings]

When a response to the letter comes back. Let us talk about the economics.

[Richard Tice]

It is an excellent idea to talk about the economics. The hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins) could not answer this simple question, but perhaps the hon. Lady can instead: when will the bills come down?

[Pippa Heylings]

The answer to that is in two ways. First, we must take gas out of the system as much as possible. Secondly, we must fix a broken electricity market. The way we charge customers and businesses right now is broken, and we need to change that. I do not believe in what happened under a previous Government, when George Osborne as Chancellor reduced taxation on oil and gas companies three times. By the end of that we had negative receipts to the Treasury, because we were also looking at decommissioning exemptions. Until some of the windfall tax profits came in, negative receipts were coming into the Treasury at that point.

If we talk about the economy, let us talk about the transition. As we have already heard, research from the CBI and the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit shows that the green economy is already contributing more than £100 billion and over 1 million new jobs. Clean power and decarbonisation are about growing our economy, creating those jobs, lowering energy bills and strengthening our energy security.

Although we welcome the carbon budget, setting targets is the easy part; delivering them is what counts. That is why we look forward to the Government’s delivery plan and seeing the steps that will be taken, because we worry that there is a risk they will fall short. The carbon budget will take much more than decarbonising our power supply and cannot be delivered in a centrist way from Whitehall alone. We Liberal Democrats want to see more action and ambition from this Government, not a focus on energy alone.

Emissions reductions will be experienced in people’s lives, and not just environmentally but economically, through changes in how homes are heated, how people travel and how energy is used. Local authorities, communities, farmers and businesses will be required to be partners in delivering change. We will have to double our efforts to restore nature, which is one of our most powerful tools for tackling climate change, by more generously supporting our farmers to accelerate tree planting and peatland restoration. But please, we should not treat nature protections as a blocker to economic growth. I ask the Government to get rid of the lazy, reckless rhetoric that divides climate and nature, rather than seeing them as indivisible necessities. We will also have to increase powers and funding for local authorities and communities to implement credible local climate and nature delivery plans.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)]

Well, we are debating the carbon budget order, but I think we should rename it the job-destroying, industry-killing order, because that is essentially what net zero is doing. For the hon. Members who do not appreciate the economics of this, let us go on a little history lesson, shall we? Let us go back to the 20-year period between 1980 and 2000. Yes, our energy consumption increased by some 20%, and real GDP per capita—per person—increased every year by 3.2% per annum. Let me now take everyone forward to the last 20 years: our energy consumption has declined by about 15%, and guess what has happened to our GDP per person? Yes, it has collapsed to just 0.5% per annum. There is a direct link between the quantity of energy we consume—

[Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Richard Tice]

I would be delighted to give way to the hon. Lady.

[Dr Chowns]

Does the hon. Member not recognise: first, that correlation is not causation; and secondly, that there was a financial crisis caused by outrageous speculation and a lack of control of the financial markets, and that is at the core of the problems we face today?

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Tice]

What a tragedy it is that the truth clearly hurts for the Green party; and, by the way, the Greens do not believe in carbon capture, which has been mentioned previously.

The simple fact is that there is a direct relationship between higher energy use per capita and higher GDP per capita—the richer a nation is. That is the fundamental point that everybody in this place seems to forget. As we have reduced our carbon emissions since 1990 by 54%, people seem to forget that carbon emissions around the world are increasing. Other nations are not admiring our net zero leadership; they are laughing at our utter stupidity, as they steal our jobs and our money. They are laughing at us.

[Mr Perkins]

Well, I think they might be laughing at him, but I do not think they are laughing at all of us. The hon. Member is talking about our climate leadership as though we should be ashamed of it, but the reality is that China installed more solar panels in 2024 than the entire world did in 2023. China is not ignoring the opportunity to transition; it is leading the way.

[Richard Tice]

And what labour are the Chinese using? Slave labour is what they are using—that is the reality. They are laughing as they sell us Chinese cheap solar panels to cover our brilliant food-productive farmland in Lincolnshire and elsewhere. It is insane.

[Lee Anderson]

My hon. Friend is making a passionate and very intelligent speech. Is he aware that we are also importing from China wind turbines—windmills, if you like—that are stuffed with asbestos?

[Richard Tice]

There we are. Apparently Labour Members want more asbestos, when we know that is dangerous—yes, it is in the wind turbines. The reality is—

[Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Richard Tice]

I will give away shortly; I am doing well.

The reality is that industries across our country are being slaughtered and jobs are being destroyed—from pottery businesses to aluminium businesses, chemical businesses, steel businesses and oil refineries. Why? Because of our high energy costs. We have seen the brilliant, highly skilled, highly qualified jobs in Aberdeen being slaughtered because this Government will not allow more exploration of the North sea. This is the reaction, and this is the consequence of net stupid zero.

[Melanie Onn]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I wonder whether he agrees with the Reform leader of North East Lincolnshire council, who has said that he fully supports the renewables sector. Given that he was working for the hon. Gentleman until recently, why is there such disparity between what Reform says here and what Reform says in its local patches?

[Richard Tice]

The hon. Lady makes a very good point. The renewables sector keeps saying that it is going to reduce the bills, yet the bills are going up. Indeed, only recently an energy boss said that even if the price of gas went to zero—clearly, it is not going to, folks—our electricity bills at the next general election, assuming that is in 2029, will be even higher. Why? Because of all the increased policy costs, increased levies, increased constraint costs and beyond.

[Dr Chowns]

Does the hon. Gentleman not recognise the reality that the main factor that has driven up energy costs in the last few years has been Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine? Policy costs are a small proportion of energy prices and gas determines the electricity price, which is the—

[Richard Tice]

Oh dear, oh dear. How desperately sad it is that the hon. Lady does not appreciate that the wholesale price of electricity, which some claim is driven by gas, is about a third, so it is not the majority—a third is less than 50%.

The simple reality is that there is a direct causal link between the growth of renewable generating capacity in the last 20 years and the growth of our electricity prices to the highest in the western world. That is the reason that everybody is feeling so much poorer. It is as simple as that. All the advocates of the renewables industry cannot answer the question: when are the bills going to come down? The answer is: they are not going to. The Government can try to cheat by putting it into general taxation, but the simple fact is that, actually, costs are going to go up. We have heard, for example, that the cost of more contracts for difference is going to increase by £4 billion, £5 billion or £6 billion by 2030, and that the extra cost to the grid is going to increase by some £10 billion a year by 2030. Per household—which is how people will want to understand it—that equates to about £500 per year extra on the cost of living because of the costs of net zero. Everybody needs to understand that point, as they debate and vote on this issue.

As we look to the future, having explained the history and the economics to those who do not seem to understand, we hear that the Secretary of State for Energy—he is rather absent at the moment; where is he?—wants to get rid of all our wonderful tumble dryers. No, no, we can’t have tumble dryers in the brave new world of the Secretary of State for Energy! Then we hear that, through this carbon budget, the Government want us to reduce our dairy and meat consumption by some 20%. We have had enough of this. We should vote against this ridiculous motion and scrap net stupid zero.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Oral Answers to Questions

Richard Tice Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Katie White]

I thank my hon. Friend for her continued championing of this matter. It was exciting to see the opening of the first project in February. We are focusing on the local heat networks, but we will continue to engage and are glad to see the CfD projects coming to fruition.

[Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)]

Once again, those on the Government Front Bench have inadvertently misled the House in saying that there is a single price internationally for gas—gas is 80% cheaper in the US than it is here in the UK. When will the Secretary of State grant oil and gas licences in Jackdaw, Rosebank and other fields in the North sea to increase supply and bring down bills?

[Ed Miliband]

No matter how many times I tell the hon. Gentleman, he does not seem to get it: we are price takers, not price makers. Even the Conservatives, who want to drill every last drop, do not claim that that would reduce bills. The truth is, he said he would— [Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman calms down for a minute, he will hear my answer. He said he would wage war on clean energy—that is waging war on jobs across our country and on energy security.

Oil and Gas

Richard Tice Excerpts

Tuesday 24th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Claire Coutinho (East Surrey) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House calls on the Government to remove the Energy Profits Levy, end the ban on new oil and gas licences and approve the Rosebank and Jackdaw fields to increase secure domestic energy supply; recognises that the North Sea provides half of the UK’s gas supply, supports 200,000 skilled jobs across the UK and generates billions of pounds in tax revenue; further recognises that three quarters of the UK’s energy needs are met by oil and gas, that the UK will continue to use oil and gas for decades, and that the North Sea is the UK’s most secure and lowest-carbon source of oil and gas; notes that without action to make the sector more investable, the UK risks importing 82% of its gas by 2035 at higher cost and with higher emissions; and further notes that independent analysis by Stifel shows that the Energy Profits Levy will cost the Treasury more than it raises and that reforming it would generate an additional £25 billion in tax revenues within 10 years.

What do RenewableUK, Scottish Renewables, Greg Jackson from Octopus, the chair of Great British Energy, the unions and the Tony Blair Institute all have in common? They all think that the Labour party has got this wrong; they all think that we should make the most of our oil and gas in the North sea. They are some of the most powerful advocates for clean energy in this country, they are the great and the good of the Labour left, and they all get that shutting down the North sea is an act of economic self-harm—an unforgivable own goal when it comes to Britain’s energy security. The question is: why does the Labour party not get that? Let us go through the arguments, one by one.

First, the Secretary of State has argued that the North sea does not help our energy security because all the oil and gas gets sold abroad. That is rubbish. We use all the gas that we drill in the North sea. It makes up about half our supply. If we do not use our own North sea gas, by 2035, we will be three times more reliant on foreign imports of liquefied natural gas. That is much dirtier foreign gas. Why would we use that when we could use our own? The argument that it does not affect our energy security is pure misinformation from the Secretary of State, and MPs in the House today would be unwise to repeat it. Even the Climate Change Committee acknowledges that we will still need oil and gas for decades to come. If we are going to need them, we should get as much as possible from Britain. That is just common sense.

Secondly, Labour says that maximising our own resources in the North sea makes us more reliant on fossil fuels. That is total rubbish. Producing our own oil and gas has no connection with our consumption of oil and gas. The biggest barrier to electrification is not our oil and gas industry; it is the Labour party, making electricity more and more expensive by piling levies and taxes on to people’s bills. Using electricity to heat our homes or drive our cars can help make us resilient during a price spike, but the problem is that our electricity is too expensive. The Secretary of State, by piling cost after cost on to people’s electricity bills, is making the problem worse.

[Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)]

Does the right hon. Lady agree that the simple thing to do to bring down bills is to scrap net stupid zero, so that we can scrap all the carbon taxes and all the green levies, and all our consumers and households would be better off?

[Claire Coutinho]

We do need to take some of the green taxes and levies off electricity bills. The problem is that if the Government keep making electricity more expensive, no one will want to use it. That is why our policy is the opposite of theirs. We believe that we should make electricity cheap by taking off green taxes and levies, and that has nothing to do with the North sea. Drilling in the North sea does not stop anyone buying an electric car. It does not stop us building nuclear, of which I am a strong advocate, and nor does it stop us building wind or solar for that matter. The Government say that drilling in the North sea leaves us tied to fossil fuels, but why? They need only look to Norway to see that that is not true. It makes the most of its own oil and gas resources, but lots of people drive electric vehicles there. Let us hear none of that argument today.

Thirdly, the Government say that drilling will not help reduce costs for ordinary people. That is economically illiterate rubbish. We are paying tens of billions of pounds to import oil and gas from Norway from the exact same basin we could be drilling ourselves. Destroying our oil and gas industry means some £25 billion in lost tax revenue for the public finances over the next decade. The Government say they are taxing the wealthy. Are they in the real world? They are taxing anybody with a pulse: pensioners, middle earners, small businesses, farmers, drivers—if they breathe, the Government are taxing them, and people are suffering. The Government could instead be getting that tax revenue from a thriving industry.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Martin McCluskey)]

I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “House” to the end of the Question and add:

“welcomes the Government’s approach to the future of the North Sea, which maintains existing oil and gas fields for their lifetime, as well as introducing Transitional Energy Certificates while accelerating the transition to clean energy; notes that new licences to explore new fields would take many years to come online and would make no difference to energy bills; recognises that oil and gas prices are set on international markets; and further welcomes the measures announced by the Government to go further and faster on national energy security by reducing reliance on volatile fossil fuel markets and expanding secure, home grown clean energy.”

As I have said many times in this House, the North sea oil and gas sector is one of our great industrial success stories. We are proud of the role that the North sea’s workers and communities have played in helping to power our country and the world for decades, and we recognise the role that oil and gas will play in our energy mix for decades to come, as well as the vast skills and experience of our offshore workforce. However, as a Government we also have a duty to be honest about the challenges we face, and the reality is that more domestic oil and gas production will not make us more energy secure and will not take a penny off bills. There is a lot of debate when it comes to this issue, so it is important to focus on the facts.

[Richard Tice]

rose—

[Martin McCluskey]

And on that point—about facts—I will give way to the hon. Gentleman.

[Richard Tice]

Earlier today, the Secretary of State refused to answer my question about why the price of gas in the United States is between a third and a quarter of the price of gas here in the UK. Perhaps the Minister could help us all and help the British people with that question, which goes to the heart of the price of gas and the size and cost of our bills.

[Martin McCluskey]

As the hon. Member will know, the price of gas and oil is set on an international market and, as I have said, extracting more from the North sea would not make a penny’s difference to the price in this country.

The North sea is a super-mature basin that accounts for around 0.7% of global oil and gas production. Production has been naturally falling for more than 20 years, which means that our North sea no longer has the reserves available to support domestic energy demand. Crucially, any new licences now would not make any difference to people’s energy bills because, regardless of where it comes from, oil and gas is sold on international markets, where we are price takers, not price makers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Martin McCluskey]

I will say to the right hon. Gentleman what I said to his Front Benchers last week: the Conservatives need to stop talking down the North sea. With 1.1 million barrels a day being extracted, that is not an industry being shut down; that is an industry continuing to produce.

Just last week, the Minister for Energy met our North Sea future board in Aberdeen with representatives from industry, unions and local groups to discuss how we can drive a fair, orderly and prosperous transition. Net zero is the economic opportunity of the century—

[Richard Tice]

Madness!

[Martin McCluskey]

That is despite what the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice) might say. This Government will ensure that our oil and gas workers can take advantage of that opportunity while driving for energy sovereignty and abundance with clean home-grown power.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pippa Heylings]

Let me turn to climate change. Although fossil fuels are driving skyrocketing costs, they also drive the costs of the unabated climate change that is already hitting our farmers and our communities, through crippling flooding and droughts. Approving Rosebank alone would add nearly 250 million tonnes of emissions, pushing us beyond our climate targets and further out of line with the Paris agreement, which aims to protect us all. Opening new fields would worsen the climate crisis without cutting bills or improving energy security. It would exacerbate climate breakdown, which is a national security threat that drives instability, displacement and economic shocks.

[Richard Tice]

The hon. Lady criticises us for trying to extract oil and gas, so does she also criticise Norway’s successful and excellent programme of drilling 49 new wells last year? We drilled none.

[Pippa Heylings]

We have been taking out less gas for decades now, and those decisions were taken by successive Governments. We have seen the assessment on the security of gas supply: Norway’s geological situation shows that it has more left, while our basin has less and the supply is dwindling. Expanding North sea drilling is not pragmatic; it is reckless and incompatible with the UK’s climate commitments.

There is another path, however. The Liberal Democrats have been clear that we must break our overdependence on fossil fuels and decouple gas and electricity prices so that households benefit from cheap, clean power. The more we expand renewable clean energy through contracts for difference—provision introduced by the Liberal Democrats—the less gas sets the price, so families and businesses could have fixed renewable energy prices. We would go further in taking policy costs off energy bills, so that households feel in their pockets that the wind and the sun are cheaper than gas. We must also make homes cheaper to heat in the winter, and cool in the summer, with a more ambitious warm homes plan and a 10-year emergency home upgrade programme.

We should build on the Liberal Democrat success by getting the Government to commit today to putting rooftop solar on all new builds. Rejoining the EU’s internal energy market would reduce wholesale costs, make the trade of energy more efficient, and avoid higher costs. More drilling means more volatility, more insecurity and higher bills. The Liberal Democrats offer a different path: decoupled gas and electricity prices, and the lower bills that families and businesses deserve.

[Mike Reader (Northampton South) (Lab)]

I have found this debate quite fascinating. What nonsense from the Conservatives! We are watching a party rip itself up as it worries about more defections to Reform, and Conservative Back Benchers parrot the lines of their Front Benchers. We know from media coverage that the Conservatives are promoting people to the Front Bench based on their social media clout, so I look forward to many more one-liners and AI-generated speeches as they all try to get to the front. We have heard arguments that sound less like a plan for Britain and much more like they are straight from the Reform playbook, talking down our country and creating more uncertainty and worry for families across the UK.

To be clear, I fiercely oppose further oil and gas exploration in the North sea. Expanding new drilling would not address the pressures that families face right now, and it would not give our country long-term energy security and sovereignty. In fact, it would exacerbate the problem. There is a claim that we can simply turn the drilling on, that billions of pounds are available right now without any Government subsidy, and that, all of a sudden, we will get more oil. That is a fairytale—it is nonsense. Drilling and expansion is expensive. The best supplies are already tapped out. Profiteering drillers and exploiters are honest about this. There are other places around the world where they would much prefer to drill, to make much bigger profits for their stakeholders. Drilling is not a magical solution that will benefit British families.

Even if North sea fields were opened today, as the motion proposes, the UK would still depend on imported gas by 2050, but it would make up 94% rather than 97% of the total. It would make almost zero impact on our long-term energy security. Let us consider the two projects mentioned in the motion. Jackdaw would reduce import dependence by roughly 2%, with the UK continuing to be heavily reliant on international supplies. Rosebank would reduce oil dependence by around 1%, and all that oil would be destined for exports, not for the pumps.

[Richard Tice]

Is the hon. Member aware that there is about a decade’s worth of wonderful shale gas in the great county of Lincolnshire that can power this great nation?

[Mike Reader]

The discussion on fracking is perhaps one for another day.

We have heard claims that there are billions of pounds to be invested, but in reality, when it comes to development, it is the public who pay the price. In some cases, taxpayers foot around 80% of the development bill. Modelling on Rosebank and ending the energy profits levy shows that there could be a net loss of about £250 million to the Treasury, while operators would receive about £1.5 billion in profits. That should give us pause for thought. Who are we here to represent—our neighbours who are facing high prices at the pumps and high fuel bills, or multimillionaire shareholders?

There is also the fundamental question of whether the Government will keep their promise to future generations on the climate crisis. International bodies, including the International Energy Agency, have set out that new exploration licences are not compatible with limiting warming to 1.5°C. Last year was the first time in history that global temperatures exceeded 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels.

We have a legal obligation, but, more importantly, we have a duty to act in the best interests of our country and our people in the long term. If we expand fossil fuel extraction in full knowledge of the consequences, we are choosing to delay that responsibility and we will feel the effects. We are already feeling the effects in food prices. The No. 1 issue that our farmers are facing is climate change. We will feel the impact of extreme heat and air quality on health, and we will see the effects in global instability, which feeds straight back into costs here at home.

The task ahead of us is to make sure that we stick with the plan, focus on doubling down on renewables, say no to oil and gas, and, ultimately, make sure that we deliver a clean future for our country.

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

I am almost a little shocked to have to follow that, but I will do my best. It explains exactly why I do not understand Labour’s oil and gas policy. The unions do not understand its policy. The Tony Blair Institute does not understand its policy. The industry does not understand its policy. The renewables industry does not understand its policy. That is not because we cannot understand something; it is because the policy is absolutely crazy.

We have just heard that we will be using oil and gas for decades. We have just heard that that oil and gas has to come from overseas, but much less of it will need to come from overseas if we open up drilling in the North sea, if we get rid of the EPL and if we make the North sea a basin that companies can and want to invest in and drill from.

Jackdaw and Rosebank are prime examples that could be producing by the end of the year. Jackdaw could be powering 1.6 million homes, but the Government do not want it to. They would prefer to import from abroad, because then they can say that we are a country progressing towards net zero. They can say that their renewables ambition is kicking ahead. It does not matter about the jobs they are kicking or the tax being lost in the meantime. It does not matter about the £50 billion of investment or the £165 billion of economic activity that will be lost. The Government and the Secretary of State will have their headline. He will go down as the Secretary of State who managed to shut down the North sea and who got us off oil and gas. But it is a fantasy. It is never going to happen—it cannot happen.

Seventy per cent of the UK’s energy—not electricity, but energy—comes from oil and gas, and it will for many, many years. No matter how much the Government wish that we were not reliant on oil and gas, we are, and no matter how much the hon. Member for Northampton South (Mike Reader) wishes that we did not need our own oil and gas, we do. We need our own oil and gas and we need oil and gas from abroad, and we will for a long time yet.

I care about the workers in the oil and gas sector, because those workers are my constituents. They are my friends and neighbours. They are the people who hold our communities together. However, this is not just about north-east Scotland. Every single Member of this House has constituents who work in the oil and gas sector and who will be listening to the debate today, worrying about their jobs and wondering why the Government are so determined to sacrifice their livelihoods in order to import more from abroad. When we meet workers in north-east Scotland, they do not talk about their jobs in the future; they talk about their jobs now. They worry about how their jobs are going to be protected and why the Government do not want to protect them. The apparent “Labour” Government—the Government who are meant to protect jobs—do not value oil and gas jobs.

[Richard Tice]

This is a critical question. Who is more dangerous to the British economy—the Secretary of State for Energy or the Chancellor of the Exchequer?

[Harriet Cross]

I do not want to pick between the two, but as a double act they are dreadful for the UK economy.

From now and into the years ahead, the transition, which the Government are so dedicated to, will see the industry move away from Aberdeen, because the supply chain, which they know is so important to the transition, is sustained by the oil and gas sector. Production from the North sea decreased by 40% last year. That is not because of geology; it is because of the energy profits levy and the ban on licences.

Oral Answers to Questions

Richard Tice Excerpts

Tuesday 24th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Ed Miliband]

My hon. Friend is right. Those people offer no short-term or long-term solution to the problems of energy security, and they want to fly in the face of all the evidence. As I have said before, it was the last Government who said that more UK production of North sea oil and gas would make no difference to the global price of gas, and it is important that the House understands that.

[Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)]

The Secretary of State has just misled the House—inadvertently, I am sure. Can he explain why the price of gas in the United States is about a third of the price of gas in the UK? It is because the Americans use it domestically, is it not?

[Ed Miliband]

No, it is not. The hon. Gentleman is entitled to his own opinions, but he is not entitled to alternative facts. What the last Government said, what this Government said and what every sensible economist says about more production is that his idea of more drilling—“drill every last drop,” or “drill, baby, drill”— would be precisely the wrong thing for our country because it will make no difference to the price. The answer is home-grown clean renewables that we control.

Oil Refining Sector

Richard Tice Excerpts

Wednesday 14th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Martin Vickers]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that energy costs have played a major part not only in the struggles of Lindsey oil refinery, but in those of other businesses, particularly manufacturing businesses. The Government’s comment that they are not in the business of saving businesses seems rather strange coming from Labour.

Ministers have repeatedly said that there is a legal process that the insolvency practitioners must follow. Of course, I accept that. I have previously said that I feel that the Government are hiding behind the administrators, because they have refused to consider the wider implications of the refinery closure, for example on the local economy, the workforce and national energy security.

I have asked on more than one occasion if the Government would prefer a sale of the whole business that would allow it to resume production. Alarm bells rang for me when I received a letter from the Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Katie White), following my Westminster Hall debate. It said:

“The sales process remains ongoing, with the Official Receiver and Special Managers continuing to engage with all interested parties. However, they have confirmed that none of the credible”—

that is the important word—

“offers received would enable a return to refining operations within the next few years or allow all employees to be retained.”

I note that she refers to “credible” bids—so we have an acknowledgment that there were indeed credible bids—and to a timeframe. That contradicts the Government’s repeated statements that there were no credible bids. Either there were credible bids or there were not. Which is it, Minister?

In fairness to the Minister, when the hon. Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn) and I met him last week, he did at least acknowledge that the Government would have preferred a sale of the business in its entirety.

[Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)]

Picking up that point, if there was a serious bid to buy the whole site—to invest in it, keep it going, maintain the jobs and grow the number of jobs—surely that should have been taken into account, not only in the interests of the local area, but in the strategic interests of Lincolnshire and the country. Will the hon. Gentleman therefore ask the Minister to ensure full transparency in this whole process so that we can establish whether or not there were credible alternative bids to keep Lindsey oil refinery going?

[Martin Vickers]

The hon. Gentleman supports the point that I was making. I got it in writing from the Under-Secretary that there were credible bids. The issue of credible bids is one of the most important unanswered questions following last week’s announcement about the sale of the assets to Phillips 66, which I should say is an excellent local employer and provides hundreds of well-paid jobs. I have corresponded or met with four consortia that wanted to buy the business in its entirety. When I spoke to the union representative yesterday, he said that there were seven such expressions of interest. The four consortia I have been in contact with referred to FTI Consulting—the agents—and have reached the same conclusion: they have been ignored and not allowed to put forward their case in sufficient detail for any informed judgment to be arrived at.

The Minister will no doubt be aware of an email to the Prime Minister from James Ascot, who is acting on behalf of Axiom. In the email, Mr Ascot said that Ministers

“have publicly stated that no bids were received for the full Lindsey Oil Refinery site that would safeguard the future of refining operations and protect jobs. This statement is factually false. Our company did submit a fully funded, credible bid for the entire site on behalf of our client, expressly structured to preserve and continue operations, safeguard jobs and provide a full credit and liability solution, and a separate cash acquisition value of £400 million… This bid existed.”

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Martin McCluskey)]

I thank the hon. Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers) for securing this debate. I know that he and other hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn), have been engaging closely on this issue with the Minister for Energy, who stands ready to continue to engage with them on the detail.

Let me start with Prax Lindsey oil refinery. It entered insolvency on 30 June 2025 because of the untenable position in which the owners left the refinery, which gave the Government very little time to act. I know how difficult the process has been for the workers, their families and the local community. The insolvency process at the refinery is led by the court-appointed official receiver, who must act independently, in accordance with his statutory duties. Since the insolvency, we have worked with the official receiver to protect workers, and to ensure the safety of the site and the security of fuel supplies. That has also allowed time for bidders to express an interest in the site and its assets.

After a thorough process to identify a buyer for the site, the official receiver has determined that Phillips 66 is the most credible bidder and can provide a viable future for the site. I am glad to say that the sale is expected to complete in the first half of 2026. As many hon. Members will be aware, Phillips 66 is an experienced and credible operator of a Humber refinery, next door to Lindsey. It already supplies fuel to the region and has consistently turned a profit in recent years. The sale allows Phillips 66 to quickly expand operations at its Humber refinery.

The company has decided not to restart stand-alone refinery operations at Lindsey. In its words, not mine,

“Due to the limitations of its scale, facilities, and capabilities, evaluations have shown that the refinery is not viable in current form.”

Although that is disappointing, it is not totally unexpected, given the long history of problems with the business. We understand that the previous owners, Total, sought to sell the refinery for several years and sold it to Prax for a nominal amount. Since Prax’s acquisition in 2021, the refinery has recorded about £75 million of losses. In addition, following a thorough assessment of offers, the official receiver confirmed that no offer was put forward that would credibly see a return to refining operations in the next few years.

Phillips 66 plans to integrate key assets into its Humber refinery operations, expanding its ability to supply fuel to UK customers from the Humber refinery. That is positive news for boosting domestic energy security, securing jobs—including hundreds of new construction jobs over the next five years—and creating future growth opportunities for renewable and traditional fuels. That being said, Ministers in the Department and I recognise that this is a very worrying time for workers, and I am glad to report that the remaining 250 directly employed workers are guaranteed employment until the end of March, although that will be cold comfort to many of them. Phillips 66 will provide further information on the number of jobs that will be retained as it moves towards completion of the sale in coming months. The Minister for Energy has asked Phillips 66 for clarity as soon as possible, and to retain as many jobs as possible. The Government will continue to support the 124 workers affected by redundancy last October.

[Richard Tice]

The bottom line is that P66 is mothballing the site, and will use certain bits of it for parts, rather than investing in its other site. Will the Minister allow a full, open and transparent look at alternative bids that would have kept the site open, and would have allowed us to keep many more jobs and to retain a strategic national asset?

[Martin McCluskey]

The hon. Gentleman will know that such discussions are commercially confidential, and the official receiver has undertaken an independent process to come to his decision.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes mentioned, the support for the 124 workers affected by redundancy last October includes a training guarantee to ensure that they have the skills that they need, and are supported to find long-term jobs. That goes above and beyond the usual support offered in insolvency situations. I am pleased to confirm that many —the majority—of those workers have already taken up this offer. My hon. Friend the Minister for Energy will be pleased to discuss any issues that my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes thinks may emerge to do with the training guarantee.

I believe that the agreement with Phillips 66 marks the next step in securing an industrial future for the site and for the workers, who were badly let down by the former owners. The circumstances surrounding the insolvency are deeply concerning, and that is why the Energy Secretary immediately demanded that the Insolvency Service launch an investigation into the owners’ conduct and the circumstances surrounding the insolvency, which is ongoing.

Turning to issues in the broader UK oil refining sector, the UK’s refineries continue to play a vital role in maintaining reliable supplies of essential fuels that keep transport moving, industry operating and support households with their day-to-day lives. We appreciate that their contribution goes far beyond fuel alone. They are anchors for local economies, providing well-paid, skilled jobs and supporting a wide web of supply chains, which involve everything from chemicals to plastics to advanced manufacturing.

Refinery facilities also enable the production of specialist materials that many of our industries rely on. For example, the Humber refinery produces the UK’s only anode-grade petroleum coke, used in electric vehicle technology, while Fawley’s output of specialised rubber helped to ensure vaccine vials could be produced securely during the pandemic. Crucially, our refineries are also adapting for the future. They are investing in modernisation, low-carbon fuels, and technologies such as carbon capture, which are all essential to the UK’s transition to net zero. The Humber region will have a major role to play in that over the coming years. While overall fuel demand is expected to shift over time, sectors such as aviation, maritime and heavy industry will continue to depend on refined products well into the future. We want to preserve our refining sector and keep it competitive.

Offshore Wind

Richard Tice Excerpts

Wednesday 14th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Ed Miliband]

I congratulate my hon. Friend, because he has been a brilliant champion of this industry, and I am so glad about today’s announcement. He is absolutely right. I want developers and all of the businesses involved to hear his message and his question loud and clear: we want to see this development built in Britain, and it is incredibly important that we work with those businesses, and we will, to ensure that it happens.

[Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)]

The Secretary of State has inadvertently misled the House. I have gas-fired power plant developers willing to build and operate at last year’s price of £79 per megawatt-hour. Will the Secretary of State admit that, with inflation, the bids today are some 25% higher than that £79? By the time that capacity is built, the cost will be almost 50% higher than £79 per megawatt-hour.

[Ed Miliband]

With the greatest respect, I trust our analysts in my Department more than I do the hon. Gentleman when it comes to arithmetic. As he is somebody who I think has had an interest in the past in solar panels—

[Richard Tice]

On roofs.

[Ed Miliband]

Ah, so it is all right for him, but just not for anyone else. That tells us a lot.

Oral Answers to Questions

Richard Tice Excerpts

Tuesday 6th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Michael Shanks]

My hon. Friend raises a hugely important point. The future of the grid is going to be absolutely critical not only to how we get clean power to homes and businesses across the country to bring down bills, but to how we deliver the economic growth the country needs. That is why we have taken two key actions, the first of which is to build the grid we need for the future. That has been opposed by some Opposition Members, but it is critical that we build that future grid. Secondly, we are clearing out the connections queue so that there is space for more projects, like the ones he mentions, to join. Both those actions are critical, and those who oppose the building of new grid infrastructure oppose the exact economic opportunities that my hon. Friend has mentioned.

[Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)]

Could the Minister explain why the Government have rejected a higher bid for the Lindsey oil refinery that would have kept jobs, kept the refinery open and attracted more investment in favour of a lower bid that is destroying jobs, is mothballing the refinery and is against the growth interests that the Government profess? Can he also confirm whether or not the taxpayer is retaining the decommissioning liabilities of the oil refinery?

[Michael Shanks]

First, on a positive note in the new year, I believe the hon. Gentleman had some good news over Christmas—I congratulate him on it. He is quite wrong, though, on his question. I should set out, as I did in my oral statement on the Lindsey oil refinery, that this was an insolvency process and it was therefore for the official receiver to conclude the sales process, which it has done. It has taken the highest bid that was on the table. P66 will now take forward the future of that site in a sustainable way and I will continue to work with it on that question. The Government do not retain decommissioning liabilities; they were part of the deal and P66 will take them along with the site.

Oral Answers to Questions

Richard Tice Excerpts

Tuesday 14th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Chris McDonald]

My hon. Friend raises an important point about the scope of the supercharger, which we are going to look at in 2026. He will be aware that some parts of the ceramics supply chain can access the supercharger, but I too am concerned about the impacts of high energy costs on the ceramics sector. I will meet the head of Ceramics UK this month, I am chairing a meeting of the Energy Intensive Users Group, and I look forward to further engagement with the sector in the new year.

[Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)]

I welcome the Minister to his place. Talking about industry, the Lindsey oil refinery in Lincolnshire is in receivership and is currently being sold, but thousands and thousands of jobs are at risk and the workers there are desperately concerned that the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero and the official receiver are not running a proper process, frustrating potential bidders for the whole site. Will the Minister, in his new job, commit to helping ensure that the whole site is sold to a successful bidder?

[Chris McDonald]

The hon. Member said that thousands and thousands of jobs are at risk in this country; they are at risk from the climate-denying policies of Reform. The Institution of Chemical Engineers reported last week that there are 800,000 jobs in the green economy in this country—thousands and thousands in the constituencies of every single Member in this House—and the hon. Member’s party is putting that investment at risk.