Opposition Day

I inform the House that the Speaker has selected the amendment tabled in the name of the Prime Minister.

Calls for removing the Energy Profits Levy and lifting the ban on new oil and gas licences to boost energy security and tax revenue. Criticises Labour's policies, citing independent analysis showing that the levy costs more than it raises and would generate additional £25 billion in tax revenues within 10 years. Rejects arguments against domestic production, pointing out that it supports jobs, provides cleaner energy compared to imported LNG, and boosts economic resilience.

Intervenes to suggest scrapping net zero targets to eliminate carbon taxes and green levies, which could lower bills for consumers.

Asks whether it is true that North sea oil industry jobs halved under Labour's previous government.

Expresses sympathy for consumers who would benefit from more domestic production and criticises Labour Ministers for following an ideological Secretary of State's lead, undermining common sense.

Intervenes to seek clarification on the Conservative motion regarding replacement of Energy Profits Levy with the oil and gas price mechanism.

Expresses concern over China's dominance in renewable energy processing, suggesting reliance on renewables may lead to dependence on Chinese manufacturing.

Supports the motion and criticises Labour for not utilising North Sea resources as effectively as Norway, arguing that it is in line with constituents' wishes and beneficial for energy security.

Asked the Minister about why gas prices in the US are significantly lower than in the UK, questioning the impact of not exploring new North Sea fields on domestic bills and national security.

Emphasised that accepting arguments against new oil and gas exploration overlooks billions in forgone tax revenue, which could be used to reduce VAT and consumer costs. Also questioned the impact on national security.

Critiqued the Minister for addressing gas markets as shipped oil rather than piped gas, highlighting the differences in local market dynamics.

Acknowledged the need for renewables but questioned how the Government supports industries heavily dependent on gas, particularly ceramics, amidst rising prices and contract renewals.

Criticised Labour's policies for reducing expected income from oil and gas by 40% to 60%, projecting only £100 million in revenue by 2030 compared to billions previously. Attributed this decline to the energy profits levy.

Asked why the Government's strategy differs from Norway, which continues to produce oil and gas despite its net zero commitments. Also questioned the impact of not issuing new licences on future reliance on foreign supply.

Called for long-term energy planning focused on national control for better security, questioning short-term decisions during conflicts in the Middle East and Ukraine.

Argued that workers see their jobs at risk due to Government policies, urging quicker transition from the energy profits levy to the oil and gas price mechanism.

Asserted that expanding North Sea production would not reduce bills or influence global prices. Emphasised accelerating home-grown clean energy instead, citing risks of fossil fuel dependence on foreign powers and lack of job creation under previous Conservative Government.

Questioned the Liberal Democrats' stance on conflating oil and gas production with consumption, referencing Norway's high electric vehicle penetration despite exporting oil and gas.

Fiercely opposes further oil and gas exploration in the North Sea. Expanding drilling would not address current pressures faced by families, nor provide long-term energy security or sovereignty. It is an expensive endeavour with limited benefits, exacerbating issues rather than solving them.

Criticises Labour's oil and gas policy as 'crazy'. Emphasises that the UK needs its own oil and gas for decades to come. Argues that stopping North Sea drilling will lead to job losses, reduced investment, and decreased economic activity in north-east Scotland.

She thanked North sea oil workers and stressed that the Opposition motion misrepresented the industry by failing to provide a path towards sustainable employment for its workers. She also pointed out that expanding oil drilling would not protect the country from price shocks, as prices are set internationally.

He argued against the pursuit of net zero emissions, stating it epitomises centralised control and Government interference in daily life. He highlighted the economic reality of high energy bills for households and businesses due to decisions made by the Government and emphasised that the UK is increasingly dependent on China for energy infrastructure.

Welcomes the debate on energy security, highlighting that oil and gas may remain part of the UK's energy mix but true security comes from domestic and renewable sources. Criticises the idea that expanding North Sea production will reduce bills, emphasising that it can take years for increased production to have an impact. Advocates for support of British businesses in renewable energy sectors like solar power and geothermal energy.

Raises concerns about job losses and the lack of proper future planning for transitioning from oil and gas to renewables, criticising both Labour and Conservative Members. Highlights the need for skilled workers in the North Sea industry to transition smoothly into renewable jobs, citing delays in decision-making processes as preventing necessary investments.

Collinge welcomes the Chancellor's measures but argues for a long-term strategic approach to energy security based on renewable sources. She criticises the reliance on oil and gas, highlighting the volatility of prices controlled by international actors. She emphasises that increasing wind, solar, nuclear power, and storage reduces dependency on gas and stabilizes electricity costs. Collinge also mentions the economic benefits of a clean energy transition and the importance of incorporating North sea workers' skills into new infrastructure development.

Stuart criticises the Government's position on increasing oil and gas production in the North Sea, arguing it is impossible to maintain. He disputes claims that domestic production will change global prices but emphasises its contribution to employment and energy security. Stuart also argues against the notion of a single global price for oil and gas, pointing out localized pricing differences and higher emissions associated with imported liquefied natural gas (LNG). He predicts an inevitable U-turn by the Government due to economic and environmental concerns.

Highlights the reliance of many critical UK industries on natural gas, noting that sectors like brick manufacturing, steel production for defence, and chemical processes cannot transition away from gas immediately. Argues for investment in hydrogen technology and stable pricing mechanisms to support these industries.

Argues against opening new oil and gas wells in the North Sea, emphasising that it would undermine climate progress and raise greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to running 56 coal-fired power stations for a year. Criticises the windfall tax removal proposal, urging the Government not to backtrack on their ban on new oil and gas licences.

Discussed the need for a just energy transition while criticising the focus on small changes in North Sea oil and gas extraction as a distraction. Emphasised the importance of investing in green manufacturing and supporting job transitions.

Responded to Alistair Strathern, questioning if focusing on small differences is a distracting issue for workers who lost their jobs due to policy changes.

Defended the Conservative Government's record on renewable energy investment, highlighting significant increases in renewables from 6.5% to over 50% of electricity generation during their tenure.

Called for correcting misleading statements and clarified the need for an energy strategy that considers both food security and energy costs. Emphasised opposition to wind farm developments on peatland, citing environmental impacts.

Supported the motion against the current Government's policies, highlighting rising energy costs impacting businesses and rural communities. Criticised large-scale renewable projects for their negative impact on local environments and historic landscapes.

Critiqued the Conservatives' lack of support for working-class communities during industrial transitions, referencing historical closures in Grangemouth. Advocated for government-led investment in new industries to save jobs and stimulate economic growth.

Mr Stafford argues that Britain's energy policy under Labour is weakening national security and the economy. He points out that importing more than $11 billion-worth of crude from Norway in 2024 has contributed to high energy costs for businesses and families, while undermining efforts to combat climate change. Mr Stafford asserts that producing domestic gas can create jobs and generate tax revenues, which could be used to lower consumer energy prices. He also criticises the Labour government's ban on new licences as a political choice that risks leaving 2.9 billion barrels of oil and gas in the ground, putting at risk around 200,000 jobs.

Andrew Bowie agreed with fellow Aberdeen representatives and paid tribute to energy workers. He criticised the current government's policies on North Sea oil and gas, arguing that Labour MPs refuse to acknowledge job losses in the region and are enabling economic insecurity by opposing domestic production. He also pointed out the contradictions within the Liberal Democrats' stance on new oil and gas licences. Bowie highlighted the significant number of jobs being lost every month due to these policies and emphasised the importance of stabilising the workforce and reducing taxes to encourage investment.

Turner intervened, questioning why there was no protest from the Conservative government when Gazprom acquired an interest in the North Sea after 2011.

Hayes asked Bowie to explain the difference between joining an American-led war without questioning and leaving Britain reliant on fossil fuels while being exposed to energy price shocks under Conservative policies.

Mr. Shanks emphasised that the debate was timely and important, focusing on workers who have powered the UK for decades despite difficult circumstances and loss of life. He criticised the Opposition's lack of action during their time in power regarding energy job losses and policies that hinder renewable investments. Mr. Shanks argued against slogans and rhetoric, advocating instead for a balanced approach towards transitioning to clean energy while acknowledging the current importance of North Sea oil and gas. He called out the Conservatives for failing to plan adequately for the future and criticised them for focusing solely on fossil fuels without addressing climate change or economic volatility. He also highlighted the Government's efforts in attracting £90 billion of investment and creating jobs through renewable projects.