March 2026

I am proud of this Government for ending the two-child limit, and I am proud of the previous Labour Government who halved child poverty in this country. If Opposition Members truly believed that putting back the two-child limit or ending expenditure on net zero would fund the military, why did they not do it in 14 years? They had 14 years to prepare. In 2022, it was clear where we would get to, and there was nothing from the Opposition side.

T3. I welcome the upcoming drop next week in the energy price cap, which I know will help my constituents. With the Government’s focus on the cost of living, we are all concerned that events in the middle east will trigger a price shock in the market, making that work more difficult. Can the Minister outline what further steps the Government are taking to reduce my constituents’ energy bills?

Will the hon. Member give way?

Methane harvested from landfill sites enables the generation of around 2.5 TWh a year, which is around 1% of the UK’s electricity. Many of those assets receive a subsidy through the renewables obligation, which expires in 2027. That generation has a supportive, but limited, effect on energy security. Given the high impact of methane, my Department and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs are considering long-term solutions to landfill gas methane capture and appropriate transit

The discussion on fracking is perhaps one for another day. We have heard claims that there are billions of pounds to be invested, but in reality, when it comes to development, it is the public who pay the price. In some cases, taxpayers foot around 80% of the development bill. Modelling on Rosebank and ending the energy profits levy shows that there could be a net loss of about £250 million to the Treasury, while operators would receive about £1.5 billion in profits. That should give us pause fo

Parliamentary appearance by Andrew Cooper

To be fair to the right hon. Member, it makes perfect sense to reduce expenditure after the cold war. I take that point, but let us be clear: the world also changed in 2022. The things we depended on for our safety—sacrosanct borders and our force in NATO—were not funded enough. If we truly were to prepare for war, that was the moment to start, and I agree that we have to do more.

I welcome this debate. As we have heard, oil and gas are likely to remain part of our energy mix for years to come, but recent global instability underscores a fundamental point: true energy security comes from reliable domestic and renewable sources, not from continued exposure to volatile international fossil fuel markets. Even if production were to increase, it would not shield the UK from global price fluctuations. Oil and gas extracted from the North sea is sold on international markets at

Parliamentary appearance by Michelle Scrogham

Our energy security is so exposed to events in the middle east because we have relied on oil and gas for too long. Not only do fossil fuels cause climate change, but we buy them on the open market, so no further drilling in the North sea would help to mitigate prices. The only true path to energy security is through renewables and nuclear, so can the Secretary of State set out how this country will do that, so that in future energy crises our country’s security is less exposed?

Natalie Fleet will move the motion and the Minister will respond. I remind other Members that they may make a speech only with prior permission from the Member in charge of the debate and from the Minister. As is the convention in 30-minute debates, there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up. We are going to vote shortly; I will suspend the sitting for 15 minutes for the first vote, and for another 10 minutes if there is another.

My point is not where we stand in the defence standings; my point is about what we need to do to prepare for war to prevent it. Moving on to the things that we do agree on—and I think it is worth saying what we agree on, because we should not disagree across this House on this fundamental thing—the first and fundamental duty of this Government, of any Government, is to keep us safe at this moment in time. I want to talk a little about what that actually means, because we focus a lot on the perce

No, I will not. I will continue for now. What the shadow Secretary of State’s motion would achieve is the raising of a lot of money. When war inflates oil and gas prices, fossil fuel bosses cash in. Just five companies made nearly half a trillion dollars in the years after the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Of course, those obscene profits should be taxed through the energy profits levy, because nobody should be cashing in on conflict. Again, I draw your attention, Madam Deputy Speaker, and the at

My reliance is on the evidence, which shows that 93% of recoverable oil and gas in the British parts of the North sea has already been extracted. Whatever does remain will be sold on the international market to the highest bidder, as many Members have already pointed out. If the proposals in the shadow Secretary of State’s motion were implemented, they would do nothing for energy security and nothing for jobs.

I beg the right hon. Lady’s pardon, but they say I am wrong about what?

Parliamentary appearance by Tom Tugendhat

9. What assessment he has made of the potential impact of the middle east conflict on energy security.

Parliamentary appearance by Pam Cox

Parliamentary appearance by Luke Murphy

No, I will not, thank you—I will carry on. [Interruption.] Fine, I will give way.