Opposition Day Debate – Speech
It is a pleasure to take part in this debate and to follow Lizzi Collinge, who follows in a tradition of Government Back Benchers standing up and trying to make the case for the utterly insane, the truly crazy and the utterly groundless. I feel more sorry for the hon. Lady than I do for the Ministers on the Front Bench, because we know that this impossible position cannot be maintained.
I do not know whether the Government are on U-turn No. 13, 14, 15 or 16—who can count them?—but I guarantee that it is impossible to maintain the current position; it rests on a number of fallacies.
The hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale said it as passionately as any Government Member, did she not? They say, “Oh, it is outrageous! The Conservatives are suggesting that producing more oil and gas in the North Sea will change the global price.” Well, I went back to the motion, and nowhere does it say that. That is the case being made by the “crazies” on the Government Benches—I do not know if that is parliamentary or not—and I include the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, Pippa Heylings, in that. This is lunacy made flesh.
Let me go back to this big, passionate attack. That production will not change the global oil price, but it will help to employ 200,000 people in this country, with all the engineering expertise and the deep supply chain that we have. It will help to provide gas, nearly all of which—practically 100% of the gas produced in the North Sea—comes into the UK grid. Nearly all of it is consumed here. Some of it goes through interconnectors in either direction, but the idea that it does not directly contribute to our energy security is for the birds.
I return to the point about price, because Labour Members put so much effort into saying, “How dare they suggest that it will change the price?” There are localised prices, so it is also not true to say that oil and gas have a single global price that we must simply accept regardless. As Richard Tice interjected earlier, in the United States the price of gas is between a third and a quarter of what it is here. Getting supply and demand in the right balance does make a difference.
Relying on LNG means liquefying it, shipping it, regasifying it and putting it into the UK gas grid, all of which costs money. It is even more ironic, given the attitudes of Labour Members, that according to the North Sea Transition Authority that gas comes with four times the embedded emissions. It is environmentally insane as well as economically insane.
For the purposes of today, I will leave aside the renewables market, but I note that RenewableUK agrees with the chief executive of Octopus Energy, as do the heads of the relevant unions. They all agree that this is crazy.
There is going to be a U-turn, and we will have the comic sight of the poor Minister on the Front Bench—a very likeable and very competent Minister—coming to this House to explain why the exact opposite of what he is arguing today is now the truth. That is going to happen, and it has to happen, because if the Government do not U-turn, we will lose jobs, tax revenue and energy security.
Those are the three qualities set out in the motion, and they are exactly what we are putting at risk by not drilling for oil and gas in the North Sea while continuing to import it. We are importing more, with higher emissions than if we produced it here, and the net result is that we do not consume or burn a single drop less of oil or gas.
The Labour party’s position is untenable.
Interventions
Does the hon. Gentleman realise—he may not, because some of the material he is fed by those on the Government Front Bench may not assist him—that whereas only 6.5% of electricity came from renewables in 2010, the proportion was over 50% when we left office? He can criticise the Conservative Government all he likes, but to suggest that one of the greatest transformations to renewables by any country in the world was somehow a non-event is to mislead the House, and I know that the hon. Gentleman, who is an honourable man, would not wish to do that.
The Minister has been most generous in giving way. He will know that Harbour Energy, the largest producer in the North Sea, is leaving. He will know the devastating impact that is having on workers across the industry. He will also know that, by all projections, this country will still be dependent on oil and gas in 2050 in every scenario.
Yet by not issuing new licences, we will by definition become more dependent on foreign supply, much of it coming through the Strait of Hormuz. How can that make any sense? I do not believe the Minister thinks it does, but he is obliged to stand at the Dispatch Box and repeat the position of his Secretary of State.
I am grateful to the right hon. Lady, who is being very generous in giving way. She is nearly making the right point, which is that the people who work in oil and gas need a transition. This Government are pulling the rug from under them.
Hydrogen, carbon capture, floating offshore wind and other developing technologies—even tidal—are not growing quickly enough to provide those people with alternative jobs. That is the point.
The Government are destroying the very engineering capability we need for the transition and, in doing so, increasing emissions by relying on imports instead of domestic production.
It is mad.
