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.

Heathrow Substation Outage: NESO Review

Richard Tice Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Michael Shanks]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his remarks and for the way he made them. He is absolutely right to recognise the heroic role that our emergency services played on the night—I am sorry that I did not say that at the start of my statement—as well as the engineers, who worked in incredibly hard in difficult circumstances in the hours that followed the fire to try to get services reconnected as quickly as possible. There are very serious questions to answer, and I hope that came through in my statement—it certainly came through in the conversation I had with National Grid earlier. We are seeking urgent assurances that the work that should have been done is being done, and that there are no other similar situations. Ofgem is taking the matter seriously, with two reviews, one into National Grid and the other into the wider energy system, to see if there are any further lessons to learn.

However, the right hon. Gentleman is right and I completely agree with his point that the Government need to be front-footed and take a leadership role in driving the work forward: we cannot leave it to individual companies to mark their own homework. We are doing that partly by bringing together our resilience work across Government, and I will soon be chairing a new group that brings together everyone who has responsibility for critical national infrastructure in our energy system, to ensure that energy security, cyber-security and other threats to our infrastructure are taken seriously, so that action is taken at the highest level of Government to ensure that we do not have a repeat of the incident in future.

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

The substation by Heathrow is probably one of the most important in the country, yet this damning report says that there was a “catastrophic failure” of maintenance. Given that National Grid also failed to recognise how close we came to a national blackout earlier this year, we have to ask: is National Grid grossly negligent and does the Minister still have full confidence in its management?

[Michael Shanks]

The hon. Gentleman may be confusing two things. The National Energy System Operator is no longer part of National Grid, as it was made into a publicly owned company by the previous Government, which was introduced by us when we came into Government. So the National Energy System Operator is responsible for managing the energy system and it is different from National Grid, which is a private company that operates the electricity network in England, so those two organisations are slightly different. Of course, he is right to highlight the scale of the failure. That is why I have given a statement today and why a number of serious actions are being taken, which will be followed up in a serious way.

We did not come close to a blackout earlier this year. It is important to repeat that, because there is a lot of misinformation about a particular set of statistics that were misunderstood by some people. We have never come close to that and we have never had a national power outage in our history. The aim of all the work that we do is to build as safe and resilient an electricity system as we can, so that when circumstances like this happen—because fires and accidents do happen—we will have done everything that we could have done to have mitigations in place. When such a fault is down to a failure of maintenance, we must ensure that is taken account of and never happens again.

Prax Lindsey Oil Refinery

Richard Tice Excerpts

Monday 30th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Michael Shanks]

I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman on any of his assessment—it will not come as a huge shock to him or the House for me to say that. Aluminium and steel have not disappeared from our industrial landscape in this country, but he is right to read out a number of things that this Government inherited and have had to fix. We had 14 years of failure in industrial policy, and that is why we recently announced an industrial policy, which I am sure the right hon. Gentleman has read and supports.

We are not agnostic about our industrial future. It matters that we build things in this country again, and we need a credible plan to do that. That is what we have outlined in the industrial strategy, but I will make a wider point: the right hon. Gentleman is against all the investment in the clean power that will give us the energy security that he talks about, which will take us away from the volatility of fossil fuels. I repeat this point to him, as I have done before: that investment will deliver the re-industrialisation of our communities, and will give certainty to the industries he talks about that bills will be under control and falling, rather than subject to the ups and downs of an international fossil fuel marketplace. That will drive forward economic growth and investment, and he opposes all of that.

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

I understand that Lindsey oil refinery has gone bust because it was uncompetitive because of high energy prices, just months after Grangemouth closed. We are witnessing the disappearance of the oil refining sector in this country because of high energy costs. We are witnessing the deindustrialisation of Britain because of high energy costs because of this Government’s obsession with net stupid zero—that is the harsh reality. That is the simple fact, and thousands of jobs are disappearing in front of our eyes. The Minister accepts that our energy costs are too high, and the Government promise that energy bills will come down, so could he tell the British people when?

[Michael Shanks]

I am always delighted to give the hon. Gentleman an opportunity for his soundbite. Of course, the problem with soundbites is that one needs some detailed, credible proposals underneath them, and they are in short order from the Reform party at the moment—it has no credibility whatsoever. He seems to have concluded a whole series of things about why this refinery closed. If he is party to information that the Government do not have, I would be grateful if he shared it with us, because we have not concluded the investigation that the Secretary of State only launched today.

The refinery has not made a profit since 2021, so for the hon. Gentleman to say that the situation is the responsibility of this Government’s energy policy is quite misguided. The truth is that while the Reform party chooses to oppose the investment that will drive forward jobs and opportunities across the country, including in his own constituency, we are determined to deliver that, because it is the right plan for re-industrialisation, for economic growth, for bringing down bills, for energy security and for tackling the climate crisis, which he might not care about, but children across this country, who will have to face this planet in the future, do care about it.

Solar Farms

Richard Tice Excerpts

Thursday 15th May 2025 Commons Chamber

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

Obviously, I like to bring people together in consensus, and I think there is consensus in the House that there is a place for solar—on roofs. Of course, I like to lead by example, so I have put solar panels on the roofs of my industrial buildings. Then, one can sell electricity to the occupier beneath and ease the considerable pressure on the national grid.

Surely solar farms are completely inappropriate. We have been hearing about thousands and thousands of acres of solar farms. In the great, glorious county of Lincolnshire, there are applications and plans for 40,000 acres of solar panels on top-quality farmland. That is completely inappropriate. It would destroy not only that farmland, but—this has not been mentioned—great jobs in the county of Lincolnshire for the next 20 to 30 years. That is absolute madness. It is also so unfair. Those living in a village or small town in the countryside might all of a sudden find themselves surrounded not by glorious fields, but by black plastic. There is no justification for that, or fairness in it.

[Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Reform)]

I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware of the large battery energy storage plants that will be required as we use more solar farms, but is he aware of the danger that they pose to the public and the environment?

[Richard Tice]

I am most grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for common sense. Most solar farms now include huge battery storage systems, which, we have learned, are very dangerous. Three of them have gone up in flames just this year in the United Kingdom. The fires cannot be put out; they must be left to burn out. What happens when those systems burn? Toxic fumes are released, including hydrogen fluoride, and toxins seep into the ground, as we have learned from California, where one went up in flames. There are massive dangers from those battery storage systems, but nobody is talking about that—and by the way, no one knows who is responsible for battery storage system health and safety.

[Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)]

I have a solar development in my constituency, and there are proposals for a battery storage solution. The hon. Gentleman mentions safety. I am hoping to address that through an amendment to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill that would require relevant fire authorities to be statutory consultees. Would he support that?

[Richard Tice]

I would be very interested. The fact is that fire departments in counties up and down the country do not have the resources, manpower or willingness to take on these safety risks. That should be the subject of a separate big, important debate. We are all concerned about health and safety. Surely nobody wants to live next to something dangerous and toxic that could cause entire villages to be evacuated, as thermal runaway means that the fires cannot be put out. I am conscious that other Members wish to speak. We need a greater understanding of these battery storage systems.

Energy Grid Resilience

Richard Tice Excerpts

Wednesday 30th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Michael Shanks]

My hon. Friend is perhaps referring to the most recent situation at Heathrow. The Secretary of State commissioned a report after that incident to find out what the causes were, and that report is due. Airports in this country are private businesses, but given that they are clearly critical national infrastructure, the Government have a role in ensuring that they function. If there are any lessons we can learn, it will be invaluable for us to learn them, but I do not want to be drawn on the conclusions of a report that the Government have not yet seen.

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

Just before the Spanish blackouts we had two unexpected outages—one in Lincolnshire and one at the other end of the Viking Link. The NESO was not going to tell us about it, but thanks to a whistleblower we now know. It seems to me that with the ever-increasing reliance on renewables, many are concerned about fluctuations from the voltage and about that becoming a serious risk. While the Minister is confident about the situation, will he confirm to the House that the NESO will tell us and be completely transparent about all future unexpected outages?

[Michael Shanks]

While Great Britain’s energy network is incredibly resilient and robust, there are outages for a whole range of reasons. The system continues to function, as it did entirely, without any concern at all, in the instance he raises. While it is not a regular occurrence, outages do happen in any system, particularly in the energy system across the whole of the UK. I will take away the point about whether there can be more transparency, but I suspect that the answer will be that this is the day-to-day operational running of the electricity system, and it is not something to be alarmed about at all.