I beg to move, That this House has considered North Sea oil and gas. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss. Energy security is a matter that impacts all of us. It allows us to reliably meet daily demand without concern for supply disruption or price spiking. It ensures that families can heat their homes, that schools and hospitals can continue to serve the community, and that drivers can stay on the road. Energy security is intertwined with everything we do. In a state of emergency, it guarantees a resilient power source, allowing essential service operations to continue unimpeded, and upholds our national security—indeed, energy security is national security. It should not be controversial to say that our energy security should be a high priority for the Government, yet here we are, turning our back on the North sea oil industry, all in the name of ideologically driven targets, irrespective of global context or the will of the British public. Time and again, it has been highlighted that the UK emits less than 1% of the world’s global emissions, while the top three nations together emit over 50%. Rather than acknowledge that context, the Energy Secretary continues to push a deadline that is 10 years ahead of the largest emitter and that precedes the third by 20 years, before the second has even set an official target. Twenty years! That time could be spent on ensuring a balanced transition that does not push the UK into a scenario where energy demand exceeds supply capabilities. Instead, the Energy Secretary insists on maintaining our weak bargaining position by pursuing his relentless targets, ignoring our preparedness levels and dismissing the genuine needs and wants of the nation. From the opportunistic solar farms being sprung up at the expense of our agricultural sector and rural communities, to reaching strike prices of £90 to £95 per megawatt-hour in the latest wind auction, which far exceeds the wholesale gas price at £55 per megawatt-hour, the sacrifices being made, including the interests of the British people, evidently know no bounds. The argument is not about whether oil and gas will still be needed for years to come, because the Climate Change Committee and the Government themselves have already acknowledged that. Instead, it is a question of where our oil and gas come from. Believe it or not, a Government should support domestic production. A Government should be against deindustrialisation, especially at a time of rising political tension and subsequent volatility. Energy security and economic stability are two sides of the same coin.

I fully support more drilling in the North sea and the granting of more licences—I believe that is important for energy security—but I think it is important to be straight with the British people. As things currently stand, that would not lower their bills, because the oil and gas are sold on the international markets. Would it not be better to follow the example of Norway and put this under public control, which actually would lower people’s bills?

I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman supports continued activity in the North sea, and I will address that point later on in my remarks. Increasing reliance on imports and blaming unstable global markets regardless of the product, when we have the ability to produce it domestically and help stabilise the market, is not just reckless; it is madness. That is not to mention the fact that offshoring our carbon emissions, such as importing from the US, does not help the planet; it simply allows the UK to portray lower emissions in national statistics, while facilitating the generation of three times higher emissions via this method of supply. We should be supporting any domestic production that reduces product cost, generates jobs and has the potential to add billions more into our economy. It is no secret that households across the country are struggling with their energy bills. The UK currently has the highest industrial energy prices among developed nations and the second highest domestic electricity prices in the developed world. That stark fact is evident to anyone paying energy bills, and it is about to get worse. The Ofgem cap for July to September has risen by 13%, reaching £1,862, which is £294 more than when the Government came into office in July 2024. I am not sure where the Energy Secretary’s promise to decrease energy bills by £300 has gone, but it looks like he actually meant an increase. There is nothing complicated about these figures. The cost of energy is rising, and households and businesses across the country are feeling the impact. A recent poll found that, although 60% of people across the UK support reducing emissions, 68% of those supporters believe that reducing energy bills should be the first priority. That result was echoed in another poll, which found that 71% of people who support reducing emissions do so on the condition that it does not increase their energy bills. The undeniable fact is that these inflexible targets are driving up energy bills. As a democratically elected entity, the Government’s first priority should be to represent the nation and act in its best interests, but the public are being hung out to dry. It is not only the bill payers paying the brunt; thousands of oil and gas workers are also on the chopping block. Giving rising unemployment, it would be reasonable to presume that the Government would abandon any policy that compounds the issue further, but of course that is far too sensible a suggestion. They appear to prefer to allow 1,000 jobs a month to be lost from the oil and gas sector in places that rely on the industry such as Aberdeen, rather than admit they are on the wrong path. I take this opportunity to welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Douglas Lumsden) to his place. He emphatically won a by-election last week with almost 50% of the vote, which is a vindication of the fact that the public—particularly workers in places dependent on the oil and gas industry for employment—reject the pace and scale of the Government’s net zero agenda.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the clear message that the people of Aberdeen sent last week was that they support the oil and gas sector and the jobs that come with it, and that it is much better that we produce oil and gas ourselves? It is much better for our jobs, our economy and the environment if we produce more in this country, rather than relying on imports.

I thank my hon. Friend for his first spoken contribution as an elected Member. He is already demonstrating his resoundingly strong voice on behalf of the people of Aberdeen South, many of whom are employed in the industry and terrified about what the scale and pace of what the Government are doing represent for their futures. It appears that the Government would rather ignore warnings that their refusal to replace the energy profits levy is putting 200,000 jobs at growing risk than delay their ideology for even a few years. They would even rather ignore the Scottish Affairs Committee’s warnings that clean energy jobs are not keeping pace with oil and gas job losses, rather than give up on this net zero legacy. I have one question for the Government: what do they say to the thousands of workers who risk losing their jobs or have already lost them? The Government will claim that clean energy is providing 100,000 jobs, but have they shared the detail on the quality of those jobs and the pay cuts that the workers are having to take? Why has that not happened? Because it means that the Government would have to take responsibility for a mess that they are compounding. The bottom line is this: if we want to support those workers, we must support the North sea oil and gas industry. The ban on new oil and gas licences is leaving at least 2.9 billion barrels of oil in the ground—billions in monetary value that could be added to our economy, thousands of jobs that could be secured and millions of homes powered. I predict what the rebuttal point will be: it does not matter how many barrels come from the North sea because it is all sold on an international market and therefore will have no impact on our energy prices, which are dictated by global pricing.

About 90% of the reserves in the North sea have already been extracted. Has the hon. Gentleman looked at the analysis of how expensive it is to reach the rest of the reserves? One reason they are still there is that it is far more expensive to extract them. Has he seen whether there is an economic case for doing so?

Underpinning so many of the decisions taken by the Government is a fundamental lack of appreciation for how businesses take investment decisions. They are not incentivised to do so. Allow the market to operate by restricting regulation and financial pressure on it, and businesses will innovate. They will invest to extract resources that are viable because they can be sold on the international market. It is basic economics that the more product they have to meet demand, the more substantial the price reduction. Scarcity drives cost. The Labour party loves to argue that our North sea industry produces too little to have a significant impact on the global market, but less than 1% of global carbon emissions appears significant enough to dictate our national energy strategy. Why, then, is a 1.5% share of the global market considered too small to be worth pursuing? The answer is that it does not serve the “net zero by 2050 at any cost” narrative. The fact that our energy security and our North sea industries are in a crisis is not new information. We all know it. Members across this House know it. Tony Blair knows it. Even the Energy Secretary himself knows it; he just will not admit it. It is time to put personal ambition and ideology aside. People need their bills reduced and jobs secured now. They are tired of being left to the whim of global market fluctuations, when the Government are not acting to stabilise the market by increasing supply and securing jobs. It is time to do what is best for our country and support the North sea industry that provides employment, helps to regulate global pricing and protects our national energy security.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Furniss. I thank the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) for introducing the debate and support his ambitions to take this issue forward. It is no surprise that the hon. Gentleman and his party have been at the fore in pressing it, including the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie). I thank them and add my support to what they do. It is a pleasure to see the Minister in his place. He always has a quiet demeanour and a smile. He sometimes even gives the answers we wish to have, even though we may not entirely agree. We thank him for acting in a way that endears him to all of us—that is quite a talent, and he does it well. I want to highlight our real concerns about the oil and gas industry and the fact that we are highly reliant on international supply at a time, as the Holy Bible says, “of wars and rumours of wars”. That is clearly where we are now. The pastor at my church told us before Christmas that there are 67 wars in the world. I speak for the hard-working families of Northern Ireland and the wider United Kingdom. We face a defining choice for our energy future. The North sea is not just a great geographical basin, as some seem to think, but a cornerstone of our national security and an economic engine, protecting our people from foreign reliance. Yet we hear voices in the Chamber demanding a premature end to domestic drilling. They want to shut down our fields and leave our resources in the ground. With respect, that approach is reckless economic self-harm. I welcome the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Douglas Lumsden), whose campaign was clearly fought on this subject. His resounding victory in that by-election indicates how people think, and we should take note. I say that with great respect to anyone else.

On the issue of what people think, does my hon. Friend agree that the vast majority of people across the UK are keen to see us move towards net zero? What they are not keen to do is to pursue a net zero eco-fanaticism that means we must have it today or tomorrow, rather than there being a gradual move towards it that does not impact on the household and business costs of everybody in the United Kingdom.

My hon. Friend and colleague brings forward the exact motivations of many people who speak to me. I endorse what he says, as I am sure others will. When it comes to our national future, security must always come first. Global instability proves that we cannot simply rely on foreign regimes for our oil and gas. If we abandon the North sea, we hand total control of our energy bills over to unpredictable international markets. We must remember the workers; I say that as a non-Labour man, but I mean it.

The hon. Gentleman is making a compelling case for the domestic industry. Does he agree that, in this troubled period of world history, our refining capacity in the UK should also be maintained? As he will know, Lindsey oil refinery in my constituency was recently closed, although some operations continue. Does he agree that we have to maintain capacity across the industry?

The hon. Gentleman underlines the issues. He is an assiduous and hard-working MP; his constituents should be proud of what he does. Those problems are happening not just in his area but elsewhere. The by-election result is an indication of that, for those who take note. Tens of thousands of highly skilled British jobs depend directly on this vital sector. Furthermore, we must confront the import myth: importing foreign fuel creates higher global emissions than extracting our own safely right here at home. The benefits cannot be ignored; that is an advantage of our own oil and our own drilling capacity. We need to support a common-sense transition that values realism over rhetoric. We must secure our baseload energy before transitioning to unproven new technologies. I am committed to protecting the Union; I know that the hon. Member for Bromsgrove is as well, and I thank him for that. Protecting the Union means understanding that a strong, self-reliant United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland requires utilising every single national resource available to us. Ultimately, domestic oil will fund the future, as the tax revenues generated from it are exactly what we need to finance our future green infrastructure. My hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) referred to the fact that we are committed to net zero, but there has to be realism about how we approach that. The Democratic Unionist party stands for energy independence. We stand for the British worker. We stand for a pragmatic, common-sense strategy that keeps the lights on and the bills affordable.

The hon. Member says that the oil and gas belong to the Union, but it is Scotland’s oil and Scotland’s gas. Can he explain why Scottish bill payers are paying the highest bills in the UK when the oil and gas is being extracted from the North sea?

I do not entirely agree with the hon. Member’s comments, but he is my friend and I take his intervention along those lines. We talk regularly about many things but we do not always agree, and we do not agree on this issue. The oil in the North sea belongs to everybody in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, not just Scotland. It also belongs to Northern Ireland, Wales and England—it belongs to us. Why? Because we are part of the Union. What we produce in Northern Ireland is also for the benefit of those in Scotland. Sometimes those things are forgotten about. We will agree to disagree. We must continue to support the North sea industry, secure our borders and protect our United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. We need our Government to do the same. Families throughout the United Kingdom cannot afford the cost of living increases, many of which are due to energy prices being passed on to heat homes and to the rising cost of goods and services. If we are ever to allow disposable income to rise, which lifts the local economy, we have to get on top of the energy issue. Although we should look to renewables and continue to work on those projects at speed, until they are ready to be of any use, we must be sensible, pragmatic and honest, and use the resources at our disposal. Our families—my constituents in Strangford and those across Northern Ireland—are calling out for help. Let us give them the help they need. With that in mind, I look forward to the reassurance that the Minister will give to me and many others in the Chamber.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss. I welcome this debate because it goes to the heart of two vital national priorities: tackling climate change and maintaining secure and affordable energy supplies. I support the transition to a low-carbon economy. The science is clear and the need to decarbonise and adapt is urgent, but if we are serious about delivering a just transition—as is the case with the electric vehicle mandate, which I have spoken about at length—we must be equally serious about protecting the workers and communities whose livelihoods depend on the North sea. Thousands of workers right across the UK are employed directly and indirectly in the oil and gas sector. When I talk to those workers, they are not opposed to change; they are asking a very reasonable question: what are the equivalent jobs, with equivalent pay, conditions and security, that are supposed to replace those that are being lost? At present, I do not hear a convincing answer, while, at the same time, the UK becomes more reliant on imported oil and gas. That uncertainty does not reduce demand; it simply exports jobs, economic activity and tax revenues. In an increasingly unstable world, energy security matters. It is hugely important, and recent international events have shown just how vulnerable global energy markets can be. We should be cautious about increasing our dependence on imports from countries that may have lower environmental and labour standards. That is why projects such as Rosebank and Jackdaw should be considered in the contexts of jobs, industrial capacity and energy resilience alongside our climate commitments. The choice should not be between net zero and good jobs; the challenge for Government is to deliver on both of those things. That requires a clear industrial strategy, investment in new industries, a “North sea 2” vision, strong domestic supply chains and genuine job-to-job pathways for workers affected by the transition. A just transition cannot mean managed decline; it has to be planned, funded and delivered in partnership with workers and trade unions such as Unite and GMB, which have been doing great work representing their members. I urge the Government to ensure that energy security and decarbonisation go hand in hand and to demonstrate clearly how North sea workers and their communities can be protected as we make the transition to a cleaner energy future.

It is a pleasure to serve under your leadership today, Ms Furniss. I commend the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) for securing this important debate. The North sea oil and gas sector is of critical importance for the many of my constituents who work in the sector. Businesses across the north and north-east of Scotland—and far beyond—either directly operate facilities or provide specialist services and a very substantial supply chain. The oil and gas industry lost 70,000 jobs under the previous Conservative Government, and it continues to lose them under the current Labour Government. It is a complex challenge, and there are far too many people who, like the Tories, are backing full-scale oil and gas extraction with little to no focus on renewables or, like Labour, have a full-on focus on renewables while forcing the decline of the oil and gas sector and ongoing mass job losses. Neither of those extreme positions provides a solution to the challenge. While we must strive to substantially reduce our reliance on fossil fuels, there will still be a need to use oil and gas for many years to come.

Can the hon. Member confirm the SNP’s position on this issue? Does it unequivocally support new licences in the North sea?

The SNP backs new licences with the normal environmental assessments and everything that goes with that, which, the hon. Lady will understand, is part of the regulatory process that the previous Conservative Government also followed. Every Government would have an appropriate regulatory and licensing regime. The roads infrastructure, the foundations of installations, the fuels currently relied on by vessels transporting offshore wind towers and turbines, and even composite turbine blades rely heavily on oil and gas production. More significantly, the skills required to deliver the renewables revolution that will be at the heart of Scotland’s industrial economy are the same skills currently utilised in oil and gas. Those who wish to force the decline of the North sea without creating renewable jobs will do to the oil and gas communities what the Tories under Thatcher did to our coal and steel communities. That would be unforgivable.

Draft 1 of the Scottish Government’s energy strategy was released over three years ago, with a presumption against new oil and gas. Does the hon. Member agree that that is damaging, and that it is time the SNP scrapped that policy?

The hon. Member probably needs to keep up a bit because that position has already been scrapped. That was articulated by the First Minister.

Given the bombshell news the hon. Gentleman has just delivered to the Chamber—that we have a new energy strategy from the Scottish Government—when will that be published?

I think that the hon. Gentleman is not keeping up with the current debate because the question was about the SNP’s policy. The strategy will be published in due course. Those who believe that we should drill, drill, drill with little to no investment in the renewables transition are simply pushing the cliff edge further away without dealing with the cliff edge itself. That would also be unforgivable. The industry is clear that it needs the Government to protect oil and gas jobs while building up the renewables sector to transfer those jobs to—a focus not on one or the other, but on a transition from one to the other. It is abundantly clear that neither the Tories nor Labour has a serious focus on that transition. A new report out from the Energy Transition Institute at Robert Gordon University—a highly respected Aberdeen institute—makes for stark reading. The report predicts a further 18,000 job losses in the north-east of Scotland by 2035—1,600 jobs every single year. Crucially, the report then points to the huge benefits that can be achieved from a strong transition to renewables. The report’s author states: “That is not a marginal advantage. It is a structural head start that few other regions in the UK or Europe can match.” He goes on to say: “The priority must be to prevent these losses in the first place, not simply to manage the consequences after the fact.” What this needs now is the investment, policy, alignment and co-ordination to match. That is really simple. Scotland has enormous opportunity to reindustrialise with renewable energy technologies, but to do so requires existing North sea jobs to be protected, or the loss of those vital skills will stall that transition to renewables. There is a so-called “Goldilocks zone”, where growth in renewable jobs more than matches reductions in oil and gas jobs, but crucially, only if the transition is embraced and the oil and gas sector is protected through that transition. Other scenarios have devastating consequences for jobs and the people and communities of north-east Scotland. Pragmatism and pace must be the watchwords on energy policy if we are to make the most of this enormous renewables opportunity in front of us and ensure a future for the workers of the north-east. It is abundantly clear that mass job losses under the Tories and the undermining of those vital jobs by Labour are leading to economic and social pain across the north-east of Scotland. The people best placed to support the transition in Scotland and protect jobs and communities are the people who live and work in Scotland. That is why Scotland must have the full powers and control of energy policy that come with independence.

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss. I thank the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) for securing this important debate. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Douglas Lumsden) on his recent win. Of course, his was not the only big win in Scotland in recent times. In Na h-Eileanan an Iar—the Western Isles—the Labour candidate Donald MacKinnon won a historic victory after 19 years of SNP neglect and complacency. What we did in Na h-Eileanan an Iar we did against the political tide: despite the polling and without the magic of Makerfield, we created a new king of the north. In short, we won because of Donald MacKinnon’s island credentials. Our local identity trumped the SNP’s artifice of a national identity. I know that we will be one Scotland tonight in Miami, but in reality, Scotland has many different communities and many different voices. A large part of our island identity over the last two generations has been the North sea. The issues that anchored the by-election in Aberdeen South were currents that ran through the Western Isles during our May election as well. The fortunes of the North sea have shaped my village in Lewis and many other communities on the west coast and in the north. It has sustained us for two generations now. It is not just the men who have made that contribution; women are effectively running single-parent families because of the two weeks on, two weeks off or three weeks on, three weeks off pattern of the North sea. The North sea has become part of our identity. Its shifts, weather and fortunes ripple through the Hebrides just as much as they do through the communities of our Doric cousins. It is not appreciated by many in this debate on the transition away from the North sea that our identity, a sense of belonging and who we are because of where we work are a big part of this. The UK is undertaking one of the greatest economic and industrial transformations of our time, from fossil fuels to renewables and nuclear power. I wish the SNP Scottish Government, although apparently they now have a new industrial strategy, would show some maturity on nuclear power and recognise that it has a role in our future as oil and gas diminish. We should be clear-eyed about why we are moving out of the North sea. It is a mature and declining basin, and at the same time we face—as we do outside today—the undeniable reality of a warming planet. We have a responsibility to meet these challenges and a duty to those who will inherit the world after us to act. The transition away from the North sea and into renewables is not the same as abandonment. This Labour Government are not, and must not be, in the business of switching off the North sea. We must not allow a justifiable drive to renewables to lead us into decisions that as a nation we may later regret. There remains lots of work to be undertaken, revenues to be generated and energy to be produced in this sector. As long as this country requires oil and particularly gas, and that can be produced and processed domestically, we should carry on working in the North sea. We should make more of tiebacks, and I would like to hear about Ministers doing so. The industry knows what that means—using existing infrastructure to explore and extract extra resources from the basin—but the public do not, and I call on Ministers to make more of tiebacks.

The hon. Gentleman comes to the crux of what we mean by a transition. The difficulty for the Government is that, on the current trajectory of development, we risk reducing at a speed that means we will lose the critical infrastructure and end up pushing the whole industry off a cliff. If we do that, we will have no just transition.

I thank the right hon. Member for that intervention. I hear him and I hope Ministers hear him as well. In that transition, we on the west coast and he in the Northern Isles have a privileged vantage point. We look eastwards to the North sea and the jobs and fortunes that it has provided to our islands, and we look westwards into the Atlantic and see the wealth of wind, the promise of renewable energy and the next chapter of our country’s story. The Minister knows that we in the Western Isles have the highest concentration of community-owned renewables anywhere in the UK. I believe that communities should have a big share in that new industry and in the renewables fortune. The Select Committee on Energy Security and Net Zero, of which the hon. Member for Bromsgrove is a member, recently recommended that community power schemes should have priority access to the grid. Communities and councils should have the right—indeed, they already have the right; it is just that it has not been enacted—to take a 20% stake in any commercial renewables scheme in their area, onshore or offshore, and commercial wind farm companies ought to be incentivised through the planning system to see communities as partners, not just as peanut beneficiaries of their schemes. In that way, my community and those across Scotland that have earned a fortune for this country and for commercial companies in the North sea will have a share in the future and the fortune of renewable energy. Let me be clear that I support a pragmatic transition in which we utilise domestic gas production rather than importing it, and support Scottish skills and jobs as we move the workforce into renewables and elsewhere. I accept that, as the hon. Member said, there may not be a like-for-like match between existing jobs and emerging jobs. The North sea is one of the most dangerous environments to work in anywhere in the world, and the pay reflects that. But this is not just a question of pay. It is not just a question of economics, climate change or tax regimes, important as all those things are. It is just as much a question of who we are—a question of identity and belonging, and the relationship that we have with place and our place of work, which is a powerful political emotion that we should take note of. And as my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Steve Yemm) said, it is not an either/or. Our task is not to choose between the two, but to manage the transition from one to the other responsibly, pragmatically and in a way that protects the country’s energy security and, crucially, ensures that we enrich the communities that have already powered this nation for two generations.

On a point of order, Ms Furniss. In my contribution, I neglected to draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, in particular the donations that were made by Unite and GMB to my election campaign. I would like to put that on the record.

Thank you. I call Harriet Cross.

It is wonderful to speak under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) for securing this debate, and I welcome my great friend—now my hon. Friend—the Member for Aberdeen South (Douglas Lumsden) to this place; he has been by my side pretty much from the day I joined the party, and it is fantastic to finally have him here alongside us, particularly in this debate. I have spoken a lot about oil and gas, particularly North sea oil and gas—UK continental shelf oil and gas—in this place, because it is so important. We cannot overestimate just how important it is to Aberdeen, Aberdeenshire and north-east Scotland, and the by-election result in Aberdeen South is a testament to that. We are not naive; we do not think that 50% of Aberdeen South voters suddenly have a huge love of the Conservative party—although I am sure they will eventually—but this was a referendum on oil and gas, and my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South put the point across perfectly that we must protect the sector and its jobs, the tax and investment that it returns, and our energy security. I have been knocking on doors in Aberdeen over the last four to five weeks, and the number of people I spoke to who have lost their job is tragic. They are very willing to talk about the job they had and the struggle they now have of finding a new one. Many of them are looking to move away because there is not a replacement job in Aberdeen. Many of them have young children, who will also have to move away. That is ruining friendships, it is ruining the future skills of Aberdeen, and it is changing the demographics of our region. This does not have to happen. We do not have to run down the North sea as quickly as we are. The Government do not have to ban new licences—that is a choice. The Government do not have to keep the energy profits levy—that is a choice. The Government do not have to keep delaying on Rosebank and Jackdaw—that is also a choice, and it is a choice that they keep making the wrong decision on. Once we get a new Prime Minister and undoubtedly, we hope, a new Energy Secretary, those choices will be different, because the public want the position to change: three quarters of the public support North sea drilling and North sea production if it means we will import less. The stats show that if we maximise production from the North sea, we could be using only 6% liquefied natural gas by the mid-2030s. On the current trajectory, we will be using 46% LNG. Again, that is a choice that this Government are making. LNG is more carbon-intensive, so it is worse for reaching our climate goals; it costs a huge amount of money; and it is supporting foreign jobs, not UK jobs. Again, those are all choices that the Government are making. It is up to them to change direction. I am delighted by, and very grateful for, the number of Labour Back Benchers who are here today and who tell me in private that they want the Government to change their position, because they recognise that there is a pragmatic path and we need to be on it. The impact is not only directly on jobs in the oil and gas sector. I have met hauliers and people who work in other industries in my Gordon and Buchan constituency, such as cafés and other hospitality businesses on the high street, who have seen footfall and trade decrease because of the decrease in the oil and gas sector. This impacts everybody, and not just in the north-east of Scotland.

Yesterday we had the AGM of the all-party parliamentary group for the British offshore energy industry, of which the hon. Lady is a member, and I hope that the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Douglas Lumsden) will join us on it. Does she agree that the effect of these job losses is nationwide—not just in Scotland but across the whole of the UK, including the north-east—and the people of Aberdeen have amplified how people feel across the country? Does she also agree that if the very biggest companies pull out of the North sea altogether, as they are looking at doing, that would have an even more devastating effect?

The hon. Member—I call her a friend—is a huge champion for this sector and her constituents, and she is completely correct: these job losses impact everybody and all our constituencies, so we should all care about what is happening to the sector. This is not just about the big producers or operators; it is about the supply chain, too. Companies in the supply chain are UK-wide, and they must be protected UK-wide. They are also vital for the roll-out of other renewable technologies and nuclear. Without the supply chain, our future energy security will be so much poorer—we will have less energy security. Adura has submitted the additional information that is needed on Rosebank and Jackdaw. I appreciate that the Minister will probably say something about “quasi-judicial”, but can he make the commitment that there will not be any unnecessary delay? The decision does not have to be delayed for a new Prime Minister or a new Energy Secretary. These companies and the industry need confidence; they need to know that the projects will go ahead as soon as possible. The Government’s decision to write the ban on new licences into law via the energy independence Bill is an absolute kick for the sector. They had already said they would ban new licences, but the decision to put that ban into law drains any confidence that investors might have in the sector. Will the Minister think again and not include that awful policy in the Bill?

I thank the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) for securing a debate on such an important issue. I put it on record that I am the chair of the APPG on climate change. Frustratingly, the British public once again find themselves at the mercy of the latest chapter of the geopolitical crisis. Our constituents are looking at their energy bills and wincing at yet another increase, as people up and down the country pay the price for an energy market that is exposed to global conflict. The fact remains that the hard-earned money of British taxpayers and bill payers is lining the pockets of fossil fuel giants, which want us to believe that drilling oil is the only way forward. As long as the UK relies heavily on oil and gas, global conflicts and supply disruptions will continue to lead to price hikes. That is why we need to focus on cleaner energy sources. Those hikes are driving fuel poverty in every corner of our country, leaving less money in the pockets of workers and pensioners alike. For too long—we have heard this in the debate—climate action has been pitched as a zero-sum game in which economic activity will somehow be hampered, but it is not at odds with economic security or prosperity. There is a case for moving away from oil and gas and towards clean energy not only for our planet, but for British bill payers. Energy bills cannot and will not be brought down by North sea oil and gas. Our constituents are better protected from energy shocks by investment in renewables than by further exposure to volatile fossil fuel markets. The British taxpayer has been subsidising a hugely polluting industry for too long. Oil and gas companies enjoy an effective tax subsidy of £3 billion every year, when we should instead be investing in the industries of the future, such as renewable energy projects that deliver wealth back into our communities, building global leadership and growing global markets for clean energy technologies. I worked globally on such initiatives with nearly 100 countries in the United Nations. Countries are successfully shifting away from fossil fuel production. That is happening—it is a reality.

Something that has been missing from this debate is the opportunity we have to be the leading exponents of offshore wind, including floating offshore wind, hybrid assets and energy connection. When I was a climate Minister, I held the international energy brief, and whether it was from talking to Azerbaijan about what it can do in the Caspian sea, to countries on the Black sea, to countries on the Baltic sea or to the governors of states on the west coast of America, I saw that everyone is interested in what we are doing and that there is huge potential. Does my hon. Friend agree?

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. We are talking about communities that are dependent on this industry. As a proud member of the GMB, I absolutely understand why workers must be at the heart of this. North sea oil and gas reserves are in terminal decline. They cannot provide a secure future for workers, and there is no long-term future in them. We have heard that just 10% is left to be extracted.

Much of what the hon. Lady says is correct, but she is setting oil and gas up in opposition to the development of renewables, when they absolutely are not. I do not believe there is a long-term future for the oil and gas industry, but we will need oil and gas in the future. We are talking not just about the long term, but about the short to medium term. That is the whole point of a transition: it is about how we get from here to where we want to be. There is no way of getting to the renewables future without going through oil and gas first.

The right hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. I cannot say that I agree with all of it, but we need all voices around the table.

Each time, the hon. Lady says, “Instead of that, it’s this.” It is not an either/or; it is an “as well”.

The oil industry and fossil fuel lobbyists want us to believe that we need to take them on the journey with us. The case for renewables is there. At the moment, however, the voices for the renewables industry and more sustainable energy sources are being drowned out by those who want us to preserve the system that we already have.

Will the hon. Member give way?

I will not give way; I will continue. I am making the case for growing clean industries, ensuring that British workers are at the heart of the cutting-edge change that every country is now facing, for the jobs of today and the future. Workers need a credible transition plan, which means proactive planning, serious investment and putting their voices first. That is exactly what this Government are doing. This is about ensuring workers’ jobs and livelihoods so that they can pay their bills, rents and mortgages. These are the challenges that people are facing now. We are not talking about hypotheticals; people have bills to pay now, this month and next month. This is not a hypothetical scenario or an abstract discussion; we must take workers with us. We cannot allow the pipe dreams peddled by those with vested interests in fossil fuels to blind us to the realities in front of us. This is an industry already in decline. We know what a botched industrial transition looks like.

Will the hon. Member give way?

I will not give way; I will continue. We also know what success looks like. Countries in the Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance, ranging from Denmark to Costa Rica, are committed to ending reliance on oil and gas, so this issue is already being discussed globally. I find it interesting that Conservative Members here are passionately making the case for oil and gas today, because it was their Government that presided over an unmitigated collapse in jobs in the oil and gas industry. Half the jobs in the North sea disappeared in the last decade under a Conservative Government. We did not hear anything from the Conservatives at the time, so let us remember why so many of them are talking about oil and gas today. They are masking what they are saying as standing up for workers, but the truth is that they are fighting climate deniers on their own Benches and Reform’s climate sceptics on their right. They are using the industry as a tool in their own political fights here.

Will the hon. Member give way?

I will not give way; I will carry on. The case that I am making is backed by science. We heard earlier that a 1% increase in global warming would be catastrophic. We are already seeing extreme temperatures. The news right now is that France has just hit 44°, we have sweltering temperatures in Britain, and people are pooh-poohing the idea of a 1% rise in global temperatures. They continue to deny the reality of the climate crisis. Yes, this debate is about jobs, energy security and our future, but it is also about protecting the planet from the present and very real threat of climate devastation. The simple reality is that North sea production is not compatible with Britain’s climate commitments.

Will the hon. Member give way on that point?

I will continue. Rosebank could produce the equivalent of 70% of the UK’s annual emissions of carbon dioxide. That is not compatible with the UK’s international climate obligations; they are international agreements, but they are obligations. These are treaties that we have signed up to and they reflect the deeper moral case that every country has a part to play in ensuring that we meet the global call to action. I want to take this opportunity to urge the Minister to continue along the path that the Government are already on and do everything in their power to continue to limit the expansion of fossil fuel production. That includes ensuring that Rosebank does not happen. We cannot abdicate responsibility at this vital moment. New oil and gas production in the North sea is not a solution. It will not bring down our constituents’ bills, it will not meaningfully diminish reliance on imported gas, and it is not delivering prosperity. However, it will risk further climate disruption, which is destruction that can never be undone. The solution is not inaction. It is a plan for a future that backs British workers, believes in British industry and ingenuity, and backs a transition to renewable energy sources. That is everything that we should be focused on delivering.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Furniss, and I thank the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) for securing this debate. Let me say at the outset that we should not rewrite history. We know that under the Conservatives there were mass job losses in the oil and gas industry. It was also interesting to hear in the last 20 or 25 minutes that, after decades of not having a plan for the industry, the SNP now does have one. I look forward to hearing more about that in due course. Then, of course, there is Reform. Its Members just want to carry on regardless and to hell with the environmental consequences. Their absence from this debate shows their contempt for workers and working-class communities. But in all honesty, I do not care about any of those parties, because I am a Scottish Labour Member, and there is no doubt that right now our oil and gas policy has left voters incredibly worried. My congratulations go to the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Douglas Lumsden). It was an excellent victory last week, and I commend him and his party on it. That by-election result in the north of Scotland really was telling for the Scottish Labour party. Even though we had an excellent candidate, we finished fourth. As a party, we often say the right things: that oil and gas will be part of the energy mix for decades to come, that we must detach ourselves from relying on the volatile fossil fuel market and, crucially, that we want to provide a just transition for the highly skilled workers of this industry. So far, however, all of that is just words. Scotland judged Scottish Labour in the Holyrood elections and in Aberdeen last week. Put simply, if one set of jobs is lost and a new set of jobs is not available, that is the very definition of an unjust transition. That is clear and obvious. People want evidence of what a genuinely just transition would be and how we can provide it, but most importantly, what people really want is action. There has not been nearly enough of that. It was 16 months ago this week that the Prime Minister promised £200 million for Project Willow and a bold new industrial future to be homed at Grangemouth. So far, we have had the MiAlgae and the Celtic Renewables announcements, and I welcome them, but again, those jobs are for the future—they are not for the now. Workers need jobs. An unjust transition means an exodus of skills and talent, with workers and their families having to leave the local area—the place they grew up in and call home. That means that communities then become poorer. I do not how many times I have asked the Minister this, but I will ask again, in the hope that he will give an answer: when will we see these new industries come to Grangemouth? When will my people in my community, who I am here to represent, see the change that they desperately need? They need jobs and reindustrialisation. Will the Government take at least some form of ownership of these new industries, which they will definitely need for decades—centuries—to come? Finally, in a party political moment, I say to the Minister that the electorate in Scotland do not know what the Scottish Labour party is about any more. In providing a genuinely just transition for workers and communities, we have the chance to say exactly who we are and who we are for, and to re-establish ourselves as the political voice for workers and communities. My constituency needs reindustrialisation, and so do the constituencies of many other hon. Members and right hon. Members. We have a blank canvas in Grangemouth. We could create something special that would transform my community and Scotland for generations. The Department for Energy Security and Net Zero has to shape up and deliver that, and it has to do it quickly.

I call the Minister. [Interruption.] Sorry, I call Pippa Heylings—I will learn how to do this one day; I blame it on the heat.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Furniss. I am sure that the whole country joins you in finding it difficult to deal with this heat and to perform to the best of one’s ability. I am thinking about those students who are sitting GCSE and A-level exams this week. I thank the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) for bringing this debate to Westminster Hall. We have heard how seriously we are considering our current and future jobs for oil and gas workers in the North sea and in the new renewable energy sector. Families across the country and businesses are struggling with skyrocketing energy bills. We are also seeing hits to our economy and avoidable deaths from a warming planet. This week, we have had the first red alert under our new UK Health Security Agency alert system, alerting us to the climate impacts of global warming. Less than a month ago, families and households received the news that, once again, their energy bills are going up, this time by an average of 13.5% or £221 a year—what we could call a Trump tax. We know that rising energy bills are one of the biggest worries facing households and businesses. They bring stress, anxiety and uncertainty, and they are plunging more and more people into unaffordable debt. Right now, energy debt in the country is about £5 billion, and it is due to rise exponentially. Also, our businesses are seeing some of the highest industrial energy prices, making us as a country among the least competitive, which is hitting our economy. Families, too, will now be bracing themselves for the next price cap announcement and wondering how much they will have to pay through the colder winter months. The reason for these spikes in our energy bills is clear: our dependence on the rollercoaster of volatile global fossil fuel markets. The energy crisis is an oil and gas crisis. Just as with Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the middle east conflict shows how a single geopolitical escalation can send energy prices soaring, leaving households and businesses exposed to shocks entirely beyond their control. That is not inevitable. In Spain, an increase in renewables has seen the Spanish electricity market go from the 10th most expensive in the EU to among the cheapest. But as we have heard in this debate, a transition will not happen without a careful, concentrated and accelerated focus on the oil and gas we need today, on the renewables that we need to scale up, on the infrastructure, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) mentioned, on the jobs and, as the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton) mentioned, on the culture and identity involved in this change. We need a serious and honest debate about this transition. Even proponents of the “Drill, baby, drill” argument from the Conservatives and Reform have recognised that further expansion of oil and gas production in the North sea, a mature basin from which we have already extracted 93%, will do nothing to cut people’s energy bills. Any oil and gas extracted is sold on the international market to the highest bidder.

My hon. Friend has come to a point of some interest. We talk about oil and gas as if they are one commodity, but they are very different things, of course, and she will know that the gas that is to be extracted in the North sea and also to the west of Shetland is brought ashore and goes straight into the UK market. The point about a global market and a global price for oil is well made, but oil and gas are different.

I thank my right hon. Friend. We have many discussions about this issue, and he is absolutely right to point out that it is complex. We know that if we extract beyond what has already been licensed, the UK can contribute only a tiny fraction of global supply, particularly of oil, even if new licences are given. It will not cut bills, and it will not shield us from global price shocks. The next argument is about UK energy security. On that point, Members from across the House have admitted that most of the UK’s recoverable North sea oil and gas has already been extracted.

I am keen to emphasise the great breadth of agreement between myself and my hon. Friend on this matter. She is absolutely right about the future of jobs. She knows that I chair the all-party parliamentary group on marine energy. Marine renewable technology is developing and will be able to provide jobs for my constituents and others in the future, but it is important that we keep the critical mass of the oil and gas industry, because if these people lose their jobs now, they are not going to sit on their hands and wait for AR9, AR10, AR11 or whenever it is that we can actually get commercially exploitable marine renewable energy.

Once again, I thank my right hon. Friend; I will be coming on to exactly that point. For more than a decade, the previous Government had a policy of maximising North sea oil and gas extraction and of removing and reducing taxes on oil and gas companies. With the issuing of hundreds of new licences in a maturing basin, what we have seen produced after 14 years is little more than a month’s worth of gas to date. Energy security is national security. We know, and have admitted in the debate, that we have to reduce our dependency on gas and come to a transition. The Liberal Democrats recognise not only that we will need oil and gas for decades to come, but that the North sea’s most productive years are behind it. That is why we support a managed and just transition away from North sea oil and gas, with investment in renewables at its heart, and strong support for the workers and communities most affected. Those working in the North sea are skilled workers. They have kept our lights on and have contributed enormously to our economy. They deserve our support through transition—not just words—and honesty about the future. That is why the Liberal Democrats are calling for the creation of a just transition commission and an acceleration of the clean energy jobs necessary. Under the Conservatives, jobs in the oil and gas industry fell by 70,000, and at that time we did not hear the cries that we hear now about what is happening or how those workers are being supported. I grew up in Hull, a city that knew the devastation of unmanaged transitions—from coal and from the cod fisheries—and through my father’s work as a GP, I saw the human cost of industries collapsing without a plan. We cannot repeat those mistakes. No community should be left behind. In Hull today, when I go back, I see what success can look like: the manufacture of offshore wind turbines by Siemens; the Humber region pioneering the offshore wind industry; investment creating skilled, well-paid jobs now and for the future. Confederation of British Industry economic data has shown that beyond Hull, across the country, the new green economy underpins the jobs of 1.1 million workers throughout the UK, generating £105 billion in gross value added. That is the model we should be scaling up towards, with our skilled oil and gas workers and the supply chains front and centre of the transition. Finally, in this sweltering heat, with this first ever red health alert for danger to life from extreme heat, we must recognise the costs of failing to tackle climate change. This week has shown us the future we face if we do not act—lives lost to extreme heat, schools closed, fields parched, transport networks gridlocked and economic costs spiralling. Climate breakdown is a national security threat, driving instability, displacement and economic shocks. It is incumbent on us to do all we can to avoid worsening climate shocks, so we must find a way forward through electrification that balances cheaper energy bills and security of energy supply, and meets our climate commitments. The future of the North sea plays a vital role in that endeavour of transitioning from being a net exporter of oil and gas in the past to becoming a net exporter of home-grown green energy—as my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) said—again trading in the EU internal electricity market and joining North sea countries in meeting joint offshore wind investment goals, while decarbonising the gas production we will still need for decades to come. I therefore ask the Minister to clarify whether he agrees with the Liberal Democrat proposal: a just transition commission, acceleration of clean energy jobs, and our essential energy guarantee, to ensure that all families have their basic energy needs met. In addition, the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton) talked about the identity and culture of the communities that have to face this transition. That, too, is crucial. The sooner we embrace the transition and the sooner we can deliver a secure and affordable energy system, the sooner we can finally give families the lower, stable bills that they deserve.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss. I begin by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne—sorry, I mean my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas)—for securing this important and timely debate, although I think his call for personal ambition to be left aside at this time is a faint hope. Given what is happening on the Government Benches, this is surely a time for personal ambition to come to the fore, and I am sure we will see a lot more of it in the next few weeks. In that regard, I take this opportunity to welcome the newest Conservative party Member of Parliament to this House. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Douglas Lumsden) secured an incredible majority in his constituency last week, in a referendum on the future of our oil and gas industry that was won by those of us who support its continuance, by those of us who support the jobs being maintained in this country, that city and that region, and by a real champion for that part of the world. I am sure that his voice, heard already in this Chamber this morning, will be heard loud and clear over the next few months and years as he continues to champion that great city and that great industry. I thank the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon), for Mansfield (Steve Yemm), for Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey (Graham Leadbitter) and for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton), my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross), and the hon. Members for Stratford and Bow (Uma Kumaran) and for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) for adding their voices to this debate. It was interesting that three of the four Labour Members spoke in favour of a change of policy on oil and gas. Although I have a lot of time and respect for the hon. Member for Stratford and Bow—indeed, I like her—I disagree considerably with her. She is a passionate advocate for what she believes, and she is right to stand up in this House and make those arguments about the UK contributing to the battle against climate change, but when she describes those of us who care passionately about the existing oil and gas industry as climate deniers, she is somewhat insulting the thousands of people in my constituency, and constituencies across the country, who rely on that industry for their income and have the very skills that will be relied upon by those developing the technologies of the future. It is supply chain industries based in Westhill, Portlethen, Banchory and Blackburn in my constituency, and in places around the country, including the north-east of England, that will develop the offshore wind or floating solar technologies of the future, or whatever it might be. It is people in Na h-Eileanan an Iar and across the United Kingdom that the hon. Lady will need and want to build more quickly.

The hon. Gentleman is making his case very eloquently, but let me correct him on what I said. I am not in any way accusing his wonderful constituents of being climate deniers; I am simply pointing out the case made by some of his colleagues. I absolutely agree that we need to bring communities with us, and I am sure the whole House shares that aim.

Absolutely—I could not agree more. We do need to bring communities with us. While I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove for securing the debate, I find it increasingly frustrating that we have to return to this House and platforms across the UK to make the same arguments. One of my constituents said just the other week, “It is like banging your head against a brick wall.” None of us understands what this Government need to see or hear from experts, trade unions, former leaders of the Labour party, leaders of Scottish Renewables and RenewableUK or the chairman of Great British Energy, which this Government established less than two years ago, who are all clamouring for a change of position on the UK’s oil and gas sector. My constituents, and people across Scotland and the United Kingdom, just do not understand why the Government, at this time of constraint on our economy, are voluntarily giving up a potential £13 billion of additional revenue over the next decade. They do not understand why the Government insist—and, indeed, are about to legislate—on a ban on new licences in the North sea while increasing imports from Norway, which has just issued more licences in its sector of the North sea, adding to the burden on climate change and undermining our economy, with British jobs lost in the process. People do not get why the Government say on one hand that they are passionately committed to tackling global climate change and want to be global leaders in ensuring that this world is a safer place for our children, and yet on the other hand are seemingly blind to the increased emissions produced by importing more of the oil and gas that we will need over the next 30 to 40 years from places such as Qatar and the USA. They do not get why the Government are seemingly treating workers in Aberdeen, the north-east of Scotland, Fife, the Northern Isles, Na h-Eileanan an Iar and the north-east of England—everywhere that has been mentioned—with callous disregard, given that there is no transition evident. There is a slow-down in the deployment of renewables, which is being driven by the accelerated decline in the oil and gas industry. The Port of Aberdeen, which invested millions of pounds in developing South harbour to take advantage of what it expected to be the boom in floating offshore wind less than 10 years ago, is laying off workers because the boom has not arrived. Some 63% of the harbour’s profit is generated from the oil and gas sector, and less than 2% from renewables. The decline in oil and gas is being driven too fast, and the uptick in renewables is not there. It is a cruel irony that we are having this debate at the very moment that Swire House, a multimillion-pound global energy headquarters building, which opened a decade ago to great fanfare in the city of Aberdeen, is being demolished. That is symbolic of this Government’s approach to our energy industry, oil and gas industry, the city of Aberdeen, the north-east of Scotland and those who worked proudly in the North sea, but are now looking overseas. As much as the Government like to say that they will increase funding and expand the transition fund, those workers are skilled workers; some of them have spent decades honing their skills in a specific, global industry, an industry that, in every country bar this one, is booming. Those skills are in high demand in the middle east, Australia, the Gulf of America—or Gulf of Mexico; take your pick—South America and Canada; basically, in every country with an oil and gas industry that does not have the current UK Energy Secretary in charge of energy policy. That is why those workers are taking the difficult decision to uproot their families, leave the communities where they have lived all their lives and go overseas, taking with them those vital skills needed by the technologies of the future and leaving the economy of the north-east of Scotland and the United Kingdom weaker as a result. We need to see a change of policy; surely the result last week in Aberdeen South demonstrated that. People are fed up and want change. Yes, they agree they want to get to net zero—overwhelmingly, people believe that we must tackle climate change—but this Government’s callous disregard for the industry and its workers speaks volumes about where their priorities lie. If last week did not demonstrate that, I do not know what will. I say to the Minister, “Please, please scrap the energy profits levy. Do not legislate to ban licences. Give the people of Aberdeen and north-east Scotland, and all who work in the oil and gas industry, hope for the future that the Government understand, are listening, recognise and will invest in that industry.”

It is a pleasure to serve in this debate, Ms Furniss. I thank the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas); at least I know his constituency, even if the shadow Minister does not—so much for being an hon. Friend. I also thank those who have contributed to the debate; the shadow Minister reeled off all the constituencies, so I do not have to, and I am eternally grateful to him. I warmly welcome the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Douglas Lumsden). I was also a by-election MP and know what it feels like to arrive in this place without a cohort of 100 other new people. I wish him the best of luck finding his way around this building. I got on hugely well with his predecessor and appreciated his contributions—at the risk of misleading the House, I must say for the benefit of Hansard that that was sarcasm, but I welcome the hon. Member none the less. I also welcome the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who is ever charming and kind to us all. We could all do with a daily affirmation from him in our debates. I certainly appreciate it. This debate has been helpful for a number of reasons. The shadow Minister and I know each other’s arguments well enough by now, so there was nothing hugely illuminating in his speech, and I suspect there will not be for him in what I have to say. It was illuminating to hear from Scottish National party that it now has an energy strategy, but it is being kept secret. I hope we will see that strategy published soon, because for three years we have not known the SNP’s policy on oil and gas and a whole range of other things. That matters for the industry that the hon. Member for Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey (Graham Leadbitter) says—and I believe him—that he cares about. It will help the industry to have clarity on the SNP’s policies. On devolving energy policy, many of the things he calls for, including further investment in renewables, have been driven by the strength of being part of the United Kingdom, of pooling and sharing investment in those hugely successful projects in Scotland, which I suspect would not be possible—[Interruption.] He is about to intervene to tell me how it would be possible, if they were devolved, to fund all those renewable projects and a whole series of other things, and how the electricity market would work in an independent Scotland. I am sure he will briefly explain that to us.

That is not the reason for my intervention. If there is such a drive to get investment and renewables in Scotland—there is some, though it is not nearly fast enough—why did it take two years to make a decision about Ardersier? After two years, the rug was pulled from underneath that with a simple no. If that was the decision the Government were going to come to, surely it could have been made sooner, and the project could have moved on and had some investment. That has the potential for 1,500 jobs on site and a further 4,500 in the supply chain.

I have made my position very clear on that project. We were carrying out national security assessments, which should always rightly take priority. The First Minister of Scotland has been briefed on the security grounds for doing that. He is aware of why we reached the decision that we reached. I am obviously not going to comment further on that. Our national security always comes first. Something that I have always said in this role is that our domestic production in the UK does matter. It sustains jobs and it delivers tax receipts and the gas that flows into our pipes every single day. We are not a Government that are for turning off the taps, and we never have been. But we are for recognising that a transition is under way and that investing in what comes next is critical. I am afraid that that is at the heart of the problem with the argument put forward by the Opposition, because they say that we need to build up the jobs that come next, but then oppose all the decisions that drive forward that investment. They criticise that there are not enough jobs coming from renewables but then say that we should not invest in the renewables projects that create those jobs. That is not a coherent argument to have.

The Minister knows that I am a fierce champion for the new clean power jobs that we are getting on Teesside. We are seeing some of those opportunities scaling up now, but we cannot see mass unemployment in the offshore industry while those opportunities are still nascent. What assurance can the Minister give that every worker will have the opportunity for a genuinely just transition?

My hon. Friend is right on that point, and I will come to it in a moment because it is the main thrust of my speech. I will start with what my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton) said and also welcome Donald MacKinnon into his place. I know he will be a strong advocate for the western isles. My hon. Friend rightly recognised that this is about a sense of identity. Yes, it is about a job and a pay packet at the end of the month, but it is also about a sense of belonging to an industry that many people have worked on in incredibly difficult circumstances for a long time. Since I came into this job as Energy Minister two years ago, and as a Scottish MP and someone who has friends and family working offshore right now, I have always said that getting the transition right for those workers is central. We have seen too many failed economic transitions in the past, so we have to learn the lessons from that. As hon. Members have made very clear today, we must also see the huge potential that comes from the projects that we need in the future, not least in the supply chain that will build many of the projects that we need as part of our transition to clean energy. That will come from those very workers, so it is hugely important that we put them at the centre of all of this. We also have to recognise that this did not somehow just start happening in July 2024. We have been in a period of transition for decades now. A third of jobs in the industry have been lost in the past 10 years, and we cannot accept that failed status quo any more. Burying our heads in the sand and ignoring the realities of the need for us to fund this transition properly will not protect a single job, nor will it create a new one. Nor will abandoning the sector entirely and turning off the taps as others would seek to do. I notice that this is yet another energy debate where no Green MPs—who have the most extreme positions on this issue—have bothered to turn up. It must never become a binary conversation. The North Sea Future Board, which I chair, has just produced a statement on what we are seeking to do to drive forward this transition. That says that, at the heart of it, that transition is not about one industry being pitted against another. It is about stewarding the future of the North sea through collaboration and through managing all the opportunities that come, as well as an obligation to work together. There is always rightly a lot of heat in these debates, but I honestly believe that underneath it all there is a lot more consensus about the need, not for one or the other, but for all the energy that we can get and for all the jobs that come from it. I will briefly say what our position is on the North sea. Gas has been flowing into this country for more than 60 years and is continuing to flow into this country 24/7. I was pleased to be at Bacton gas terminal a few weeks ago to see the skilled work that they do to manage up to a third of this country’s gas. It will continue to be a vital resource for decades to come, but it is also a basin that has been in decline. The most accessible oil and gas has been extracted. Production has been in decline for a quarter of a century, and it reduced by approximately 75% between 1999 and 2024. That did not begin in July 2024.

On that basis, why do the Government feel it necessary to ban new licences? The Minister says that production is declining, so why do they need to ban them?

Because we want to steward the future of the basin and have a strategic plan that industry can get behind. Very few of the licences that have been issued in the past few years have come to production, so they are not the route to that, but the process had so far not had clarity from the Government. That is why we said what we said on licences. The second part of our manifesto commitment, which is often ignored in this conversation, is that we will continue to manage existing fields over their lifetime. We are not rescinding any licences—we are not saying that new production could not come forward in existing licensed fields—or rescinding any projects that currently exist. My hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar made a point about the importance of tiebacks. This is the pragmatic approach that industry has called for, recognising that the most economically viable route to sustaining the fields is to have a tieback to an existing field that produces new oil and gas. That maintains the critical infrastructure and supply chains, as well as prolonging jobs. That is what industry called for, and that is the pragmatic approach we took in the North sea future plan.

How confident is the Minister that he can maintain the infrastructure in the North sea and to the west of Shetland, so that oil and gas can be brought onshore, as well as through floating production storage and offloading units, without new licences?

The right hon. Gentleman raises an important point about what the stewardship of the basin has to look like, and he made another important point earlier about not conflating oil and gas. Equally, the story we tell about the North sea is often what the North sea looked like 30 or 40 years ago. It has changed significantly; the operators in the basin have changed, but so too has the structure of many of the operations. The North Sea Transition Authority has a role in planning the future of the basin and identifying issues relating to sustainability and infrastructure. It also has a role in looking at how we can do more around, for example, the electrification of platforms, so that we can reduce emissions from the platforms wherever possible and tie into offshore wind projects where possible. Let me turn to the critical issue of the workforce. Under the North sea future plan, we will introduce a statutory objective for the North Sea Transition Authority to consider workers, communities and supply chains in its decisions. The NSTA has been looking at how it can support the transition for a long time, but this gives it a statutory objective to do so. This is not just about production and infrastructure. It is about people and places; it is about the workers who built the North sea success story, and with it the success of the British economy, the communities that supported it and, crucially, the supply chains that go with it. We will also extend employment rights and protections to offshore renewables workers, and I hope that everyone in this House will support that. Coming to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Steve Yemm), we recognise that the clean energy workforce of the future has to have strong and fair protections, be trade unionised and have good, well-paid jobs. That is partly why, for offshore wind, we have driven forward the fair work charter as part of the clean industry bonus, so that rights are at the heart of these jobs and that, wherever possible, workers can transition from oil and gas into these jobs with good terms and conditions. That was opposed by some Conservative Members when we took it through Parliament recently, but I hope that they will rethink, because it is hugely important. The hon. Member for Bromsgrove made a point about energy security, which is absolutely right. Our energy security is our national security. It is perhaps more important now than in recent years that we recognise that, in an uncertain world, our energy security is a hugely important part of how we build much more security at home. The point made about refinery capacity was right. We lost two refineries in this country, and I regret hugely that we did not do more to prevent those closures in the years leading up to them. We have now to protect our four refineries, which are hugely important sovereign capacity. In a global fuel crisis, those refineries have been key to ensuring that Britain has not suffered fuel shortages. We have to continue to support them. On the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman), we committed to invest £200 million in the future of Grangemouth, and other projects are coming through. I gently say to him that we had to pick it up with no planning done in advance, and I am afraid it is not possible for us to get projects off the shelf, invest money in them and get them built immediately. We need business and industry to come forward with propositions, and the Government have an open door to engage with them directly on how we can deploy that money to Grangemouth. I meet them regularly to make sure that is happening, and we will continue to do that. Again, I thank the hon. Members who have participated. It is hugely important that we talk about these issues. I hope we can also find a way, at some point, of reaching some consensus on how we can have an all-energy approach to the future of the North sea. I recognise that needs a pragmatic position on our side, but it also needs a pragmatic position from those who, in recent years, seem to have become anti the very investment that will drive forward the future of the North sea. It is not possible for us to secure the long-term future of the North sea purely by calling for new licences in oil and gas. Anyone who believes that is the long-term answer is ignoring the reality in front of us. Oil and gas is hugely important, but the transition works only if we also invest and build up what comes next. We need both of them. A fair, managed and prosperous transition means investing in all of that—in offshore wind, carbon capture, long-duration energy storage in Scotland and elsewhere, and in supply chains so that we are building energy in Britain again, not towing it in from somewhere else and offshoring the jobs. That is the opportunity in front of us. None of this will be easy. We will have to wrestle with some real challenges, but if we move fast to invest in the future and take a pragmatic position, I believe the North sea has a strong future ahead of it. I do not pretend that it is straightforward or that that will somehow give comfort to the workers who are facing it just now, but I am absolutely committed to making this work, and so are the Government. I thank the hon. Member for Bromsgrove for securing the debate, and I thank everyone who participated.

I thank all hon. Members from all parties across the House for participating. There is clearly lots of passion and enthusiasm for this topic, as well as much concern. The debate was conducted in a very pragmatic fashion, which recognises that there is no climate denial across the House. Members recognise that there needs to be a fair transition that supports existing oil and gas jobs, and does what it can to strengthen those jobs and to ensure that the UK maintains an energy security position where we are able to tap into natural resources while focusing on the jobs of the future. I was pleased to hear jobs, taxation and the importance of prosperity in Scotland emphasised in the debate, given the role that the region plays in our national security. I was pleased to hear the emphasis on refining. I implore the Minister to reflect on his words about the opportunities that have been missed in the past to strengthen the refining sector. I hope that the Government will take on board what has been said across the House today as they think about the role that North sea oil and gas can play going into the future. There was an emphasis on ensuring that drilling can continue, abandoning the energy profits levy, and doing whatever the Government can to work with industry and workers who currently have those jobs, so that we do not have a moment of regret in the future and wish that we had done more now to prevent job losses and a further reduction of our energy resilience.

I thank everyone for a very respectful debate. It was important that it happened as it did. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered North Sea oil and gas.