Opposition Day Motion: Oil and Gas
108Ayes
297Noes
Defeated · majority 189 · Government won242 did not vote
647 Members · Aye 108 · No 297 · DNV 242 · grey dots in centre are abstentions
Analysis
Commons
Commons
Parliament voted on 24 March 2026 on an opposition day motion on oil and gas policy, brought by Conservative MPs to force a debate and a vote on the government's approach to North Sea licensing. The motion was defeated by 297 votes to 108. Opposition day motions are procedural tools that allow parties outside government to choose a debate topic and put a position to a vote; the government almost always votes them down. The vote reflects a live policy dispute over whether the UK should continue issuing new licences for North Sea oil and gas extraction. The Conservatives used their motion to back continued domestic fossil fuel production; the Labour government, led on energy policy by Ed Miliband, has moved to restrict new licences as part of its clean energy transition. With media coverage pointing to energy price pressures linked to instability in the Middle East, the question of domestic supply has sharpened as a political flashpoint. The vote divided almost entirely on party lines. All 100 Conservative MPs who voted backed the motion, joined by all five Democratic Unionist Party MPs, the Ulster Unionist Party's single MP, and the Traditional Unionist Voice MP. All 260 Labour MPs and 24 Labour and Co-operative MPs who voted opposed it, alongside all Green and Plaid Cymru MPs. Three independents voted with the Conservatives; five voted with the government. Labour recorded 101 MPs with no vote, and Conservatives 16.
Voting Aye meant
Support the opposition's position on oil and gas — likely backing continued North Sea licensing or resisting restrictions on domestic fossil fuel production
Voting No meant
Reject the opposition's motion on oil and gas, backing the Labour government's approach of restricting new oil and gas licences as part of its clean energy transition
Each row is one party. The stacked bar gives the within-party split of Aye / No / Absent; the columns on the right give the raw counts. The whip column shows the published party position — “Free vote” means the whip was formally removed for this division.
Party
Whip
Aye / No / Abs
Aye
No
Abs
Labour Party
Whipped No
0
260
101
Conservative and Unionist Party
Whipped Aye
100
0
16
Liberal Democrats
—
0
0
71
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped No
0
24
18
Independent
—
3
5
5
Scottish National Party
—
0
0
9
Reform UK
—
0
0
8
Sinn Féin
—
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist Party
Whipped Aye
5
0
0
Green Party of England and Wales
Whipped No
0
4
1
Plaid Cymru
Whipped No
0
3
1
Social Democratic and Labour Party
—
0
0
2
Your Party
—
0
2
0
Alliance Party of Northern Ireland
—
0
0
1
Restore Britain
—
0
0
1
Speaker
—
0
0
1
Traditional Unionist Voice
—
1
0
0
Ulster Unionist Party
—
1
0
0
Source · Hansard · UK Parliament Votes API · whip status from announced positions; “free vote” indicates the whip was formally removed
Remove the Energy Profits Levy, approve Rosebank and Jackdaw fields, and enable new oil and gas licences to secure domestic energy supply, create 200,000 jobs, generate £25 billion in tax revenue, and use lower-carbon North Sea gas instead of dirtier LNG imports.Conservative · Voted aye · Read full speech (2,956 words) →
New oil and gas licences would take years to deliver and make no difference to bills since oil and gas prices are set on international markets; the government's approach of maintaining existing fields while accelerating clean energy transition is the path to genuine energy security and lower bills.Labour · Voted no · Read full speech (2,472 words) →
Expanding oil and gas drilling in the mature North Sea basin is incompatible with climate commitments and won't cut bills; the UK should decouple gas and electricity prices and invest in renewables, contracts for difference, and home upgrades instead.Liberal Democrat · Voted no_vote_recorded · Read full speech (1,362 words) →
The government's policy to restrict North Sea development is economically and environmentally reckless; it destroys skilled jobs in north-east Scotland, loses £165 billion in economic value, and forces reliance on dirtier foreign gas instead of using domestic resources.Conservative · Voted aye · Read full speech (1,332 words) →
The Opposition motion misrepresents the industry and offers slogans not strategy; nine in ten oil and gas workers have high skills transferability to hydrogen, carbon capture, and renewables, which are where long-term growth and sustainable jobs lie, not in declining North Sea extraction.Labour · Voted no · Read full speech (870 words) →
New North Sea drilling is expensive, offers negligible impact on imports or bills, and contradicts climate commitments; the government should focus on renewables, where the economic case is clearer and long-term growth is assured.Labour · Voted no · Read full speech (838 words) →
The government's ideological pursuit of net zero without regard for economic consequences is destroying industry and jobs; the UK should follow Norway's pragmatic example of maximizing North Sea resources while transitioning gradually, not overnight abandonment.Conservative · Voted aye · Read full speech (1,362 words) →
The government's position rests on fallacies; producing more North Sea gas will strengthen domestic energy security by supplying the UK grid directly, generate billions in forgone tax revenue, and employ 200,000 skilled workers—the current policy is 'utterly insane'.Conservative · Voted aye · Read full speech (1,696 words) →
Sources
Division dataUK Parliament Votes API
DebateHansard · Commons
Stance analysisAI analysis · Claude 4.x
LicenceOpen Parliament Licence v3.0