Business of the House

“a phased and responsible transition in the North Sea that recognises…the ongoing role of oil and gas in our energy mix.”

Nine months on, we can see how that is going. The Government have already had to U-turn on their infeasible commitment to zero carbon electricity by 2030. Most recently, the situation with British Steel in Scunthorpe has underlined the deeper incoherence of their overall approach. By banning new oil and gas licences and preventing new exploration, the Government are committing the UK to greater dependency on imported oil and gas at higher cost, with higher emissions and under less democratic control. In so doing, they are not advancing environmental justice or economic resilience; they are accelerating a decline in energy sovereignty that will leave this country more polluting, less secure and, ultimately, poorer.

If we do not produce our own oil and gas, we will have to buy it. The difference is that it will come from overseas, and imported energy is not only more expensive but has a far higher carbon footprint. I remind the House that, for example, importing liquefied natural gas involves cooling gas to 160° below zero, shipping it thousands of miles from Qatar and regasifying it at a port in this country. The net emissions are up to four times higher than those from North sea gas. Crucially, UK territorial emissions go down, but overall emissions, including imports, are higher than they would be. This is not an honest policy.

Labour’s manifesto talked about the importance of energy security, but refusing to allow new exploration does not reduce our vulnerability; it increases it. Energy, after all, is national security. It is industrial strategy. It is heating our houses and fuelling our cars. The idea that a major economy should voluntarily give up control of its energy supply before alternatives are well advanced is not progressive—it is reckless.

The problem goes somewhat wider. The Government talk about a green industrial revolution, but the more expensive imported energy we have, the harder that will be to achieve. Not just steel but chemicals, ceramics and fertilisers all require large amounts of gas and will do for years to come. If energy is unreliable or unaffordable, those industries will continue to struggle whatever the fond imaginings of the Secretary of State. Worse still, the Government’s policy will squander capital and skills that might have gone into safely managing the UK’s remaining hydrocarbon assets. The extra revenues that would have helped fund the transition will now be lost to the many other countries that welcome such investment, while the Government turn their back on a sector that still employs 200,000 people and contributes billions in tax revenue.

I ask the Leader of the House whether she shares my view that we badly need some common sense here. We all want an effective and just energy transition, but that starts with one principle: control what we can and use our own resources responsibly and transparently while building the clean energy system of the future. Instead, the Government have chosen a path that will increase emissions, raise costs, weaken the economy and tie Britain’s future to foreign powers and volatile markets. That is not leadership; that is an abdication.

I notice that the Chamber is very busy today—unlike many Members—as we look forward to the local elections. The shadow Leader of the House did not want to use this opportunity to make his party’s pitch for the forthcoming local elections, perhaps because the Conservatives are not quite sure what their pitch is. People have not forgotten the chaos and decline that his party left this country in after 14 years of failure and sleaze.

The Labour party is putting money in people’s pockets with our boost to the living wage, with wages rising faster than prices; we are fixing the NHS, with waiting lists down for six months in a row and cut by 220,000 since July; our new free breakfast clubs will give kids the start to life that they need; we are taking back control of our trains and buses; and, as I saw at the weekend, we are taking swift action to tackle crime and antisocial behaviour by seizing and crushing off-road bikes, which I did myself. That is the difference that Labour makes in power.

I am still not quite sure what the Conservative party’s strategy is at the elections. Perhaps the shadow Leader of the House would like to enlighten us. Is it what has been proposed by the shadow Justice Secretary, the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), in the form of an alliance with Reform? If that is not their strategy, why has he not been sacked? The Leader of the Opposition used her flagship election interview on the “Today” programme this week to tell us of her one big achievement: Tory party unity. I nearly spat out my tea! Tory Members can barely muster a cheer for her at Prime Minister’s questions, and the shadow Justice Secretary is in open leadership campaign mode.

In fact, this week I have seen a letter that the shadow Justice Secretary sent to all Conservative local election candidates with his clear leadership pitch and the offer of “lunch with Robert”. By the way, it was all on House of Commons-headed paper, Madam Deputy Speaker, which is highly questionable. It is blatant manoeuvring, and a strong leader would have sacked him by now. Is it not the truth that, at the elections next week, a vote for the Conservatives is a vote for Reform, and a vote for Reform is a vote for the Conservatives?