Fracking Ban

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

Tuesday 15th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Claire Young]

I quite agree. The hon. Gentleman better explains the point that I was trying to make, which is that other issues, such as the potential for groundwater contamination, are different in the situation of fracking for fossil fuels.

Ministers tell us that the evidence base is not there to show that lower-volume fracking carries the same risk as fracking for shale gas, but I say gently to the Government that the evidence is there, and it is sitting in their own records. The earthquake at Preston New Road that triggered the 2019 moratorium did not follow some enormous injection, but a series of lower-volume stages, every one of which was below the legal threshold. The tremor that shook Lancashire, felt across the area at a magnitude of 2.9, came in the days after a stage that used just 142 cubic metres of fluid. The then Oil and Gas Authority concluded that it was not possible to predict the timing or size of these events. The volumes proposed at Burniston were higher than the volume that caused that earthquake.

This matters well beyond seismicity. It matters for our countryside and for the rural communities and protected landscapes that would host this drilling and gain almost nothing in return. It matters for our waters, as has already been mentioned; parts of Yorkshire were under a hosepipe ban in 2025, yet we are asked to pump scarce water deep underground and accept the risk of contaminating the aquifers that families and farms depend on. It matters for the climate, too. Every new source of onshore gas means more methane, more emissions and a direct collision with the carbon budgets that this House has voted for—not to mention our net zero ambitions.

There are voices—Reform Members among them—who say that the answer to high bills is to return to fossil fuels and to frack our way out of trouble. I understand the appeal of a simple answer, but it is the wrong one. Gas is priced on an international market. Drilling a handful of wells in the English countryside would not move that price, and the companies doing the drilling would sell at whatever the market pays. Fracking would not take a single pound off a family’s bill. What it would do is divide communities, tie up local councils in years of planning battles and lock us into the very fuel whose price swings caused the crisis in the first place. We would be more exposed, so I question their intentions.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

Is it not true that fracking is a massive scar on the countryside and is far more visible and disruptive than, for example, an onshore wind turbine?

[Claire Young]

Absolutely, and I was just about to come to that point. In many cases, the very same people who would argue for fracking would argue for fewer wind farms, solar farms and other renewable energy sources due to their blighting of the countryside. I ask those voices, how is fracking supporting the upkeep of our countryside? How is it better than those other uses of countryside, which would produce clean energy, and how is contaminating our water supply helping anyone?

The honest route to lower bills and real energy security is the one that this country is already capable of taking: cheap, clean, home-grown power. By that I mean renewables, but also low-carbon generation; the prospect of new nuclear at Oldbury in my own constituency shows the part that low-carbon generation can play alongside renewables in a secure system. That is where the jobs are, and that is where the investment should be flowing. That is the future.

My ask of the Minister is a single, clear one. I feel as if this Government may need some clarity. I ask the Minister to commit today to defining fracking by its purpose and effect, not by an arbitrary measure of fluid used, so that every form of hydraulic fracturing is captured, the loophole is closed and the permanent ban that this Government have promised is written into law rather than left in a conference speech and forgotten. Our countryside, our water and our climate deserve nothing less.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury and Yate (Claire Young) on securing this important debate and on her excellent introduction. I am in full solidarity with the communities of the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume). In 2015, there was the threat of fracking near Bath, so I know exactly what the arguments are and how fearful communities are about it coming to them. We must all stand together to support her and her community to stop fracking.

The Liberal Democrats have long called for a complete and permanent ban on fracking. Fracked fuel is a fossil fuel, which cements our reliance on expensive gas and flies in the face of our net zero commitments. It also flies in the face of commitments to protect our environment.

I do not know who makes the argument that an onshore wind turbine or a solar panel is a scar on our natural environment but that fracking—the biggest scar we can inflict on our communities—is not. We should not be fooled. The gases produced by fracking contribute directly to global warming and climate change, the effects of which are not a distant threat but already taking place. In the UK this summer, 28,000 deaths were linked to extreme heat, wildfires destroyed homes and our countryside, and over 25 million people faced restrictions on their water use. We cannot continue to support the energy of the past; we must urgently replace it.

[Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)]

Perhaps my hon. Friend, like me, saw several screenings of “The People’s Emergency Briefing” over the summer recess. It paints a devastating picture of what will happen if we continue down this route, and that includes fracking. Does she agree that we need a national briefing to educate people on the issue?

[Wera Hobhouse]

I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution; I absolutely agree. It is important that people across the country understand why we in Parliament and the UK Government must lead on climate change. Many people are already aware, but a lot of misinformation is being spread around to try to reset the progress we have made. We must not get distracted by the naysayers and the people I call the flat-earthers—I know that is a bit of an insult. This is a science, and we must listen to the science.

Not only does fracking contribute to climate change, but it is very unsustainable in other ways. It demands vast amounts of water, which is completely at odds with public safety and security when droughts are becoming increasingly common. Additionally, as has already been mentioned, the pollutants released from fracking sites affect air and water quality, posing serious health risks to local communities living nearby. Lower-volume fracking is clearly linked to unpredictable earthquakes and poses a serious threat to public safety, yet there are currently multiple proposals for low-volume fracking across Yorkshire and Lincolnshire, and my hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury and Yate has already explained the difference. They cannot be permitted to go ahead.

The current definition of “high-volume fracking” would not even cover the activities of Cuadrilla in the lead-up to the earthquake caused by fracking at its Preston New Road site in Lancashire. That is despite the moratorium being introduced as a consequence of that very earthquake. Fracking is not sustainable and it is not safe. It is incomprehensible that in 2026 it is not banned outright.

The Government’s proposal to end new onshore oil and gas licensing is a welcome step in the right direction, but it does not go far enough. It would have no impact on areas that are already licensed for fracking, which would remain covered only by a moratorium that can easily be overturned. It would fail to close the loopholes in the moratorium, where hydraulic fracturing is defined only by high fluid volume thresholds.

The public support a ban on fracking; in fact, when asked to choose, 60% of people would rather have a solar farm nearby than a fracking site—for very good reasons. Labour made its position on fracking clear before it came into power: it pledged in its 2024 manifesto to “ban fracking for good”. Yet now they are in power, the Government seem to have forgotten about their pledge.

The energy independence Bill, as has been mentioned, is an opportunity for the Government to honour their promise and deliver a full ban on fracking. The Bill must do three things. First, it must close the loopholes that allow applications for damaging low-volume fracking and other harmful fracking techniques such as acid fracturing. Secondly, it must introduce a permanent ban in law. That would put an end to the current situation, where fracking is permitted because a Minister simply needs to make a statement to reverse the moratorium. Thirdly, the Bill must ensure that a ban on fracking applies to all areas covered by existing licences.

I urge the Government to act now and introduce a full ban on fracking to protect the security, safety and health of the public and our environment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)]

Well, this is a fascinating debate, full of nonsense and misinformation. Let us just set the context of what we are talking about, shall we? It is not actually a debate about fracking. It turns out that it is a debate about gas—shale gas, for example. I urge hon. Members in this House and those watching to just ask themselves why everybody in this country is arguing and distressed and concerned about the price of electricity and energy. Why is it that the price of gas in the United States is a mere 20% of the price of gas here in the United Kingdom? Well, I can tell hon. Members: it is because for the last 20-plus years, yes, the United States has been enjoying the benefits of shale gas, which it has extracted through one method, which is called fracking or hydraulic fracking.

[Wera Hobhouse]

Would the hon. Member give us some figures or comparisons of how much fracked fuel we can produce in this country compared with the United States?

[Richard Tice]

I am delighted to assist the hon. Lady, who is clearly not informed whatsoever. We have somewhere between 30 years and 50 years of gas for the whole of the United Kingdom available onshore. In Lincolnshire alone—

[Wera Hobhouse]

Fracked gas?

[Richard Tice]

Yes, exactly. It may pay the hon. Member to listen. In Lincolnshire alone, there is some 10 years of shale gas—a decade’s-worth—for the United Kingdom, and that could generate thousands and thousands of jobs.

The context is very simple. In the United States, fracking has been transformational to the US economy. It is the reason that it has much lower gas prices and much lower electricity prices. In Lincolnshire alone, as I was just explaining, the density of shale gas in the Gainsborough trough is believed to be double that of the most productive shale gas in Pennsylvania of the Marcellus shale. The opportunity is enormous.

Even if hon. Members were to disagree with me completely, which I suspect may be the case, a middle ground might be to say, “Before we make a seismic decision, the answer might be to do a proper test, which could be independently monitored, supervised and checked for, let’s say, a year, or two years”—I am a generous man, of course—“and that can then be verified.” We could do that with a number of different wells using a number of different techniques, because there are indeed numerous different extraction techniques depending on the depth to which one goes. Some 11 techniques can be counted, including low-volume hydraulic fracking, high-volume hydraulic fracking, and acidic oscillation—on and on the list goes. Why would we be so dogmatic, so stubborn and, bluntly, so negligent against the financial interests and prosperity of all our citizens that we would refuse to use this glorious energy treasure that has made the United States so wealthy?

The potential is enormous: tens and tens of billions of investment into our community; tens and tens and tens, and tens and tens, more billions of tax revenue potential, with enormous community benefits.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Tice]

No, there have been tests into the Gainsborough trough, which is why I made the claim about the density. Then, of course, there is the evidence of successful businesspeople who invested hundreds of millions of pounds because they had done the geological work and realised that there is a huge opportunity, and they are still there. That is the evidence, because when people are prepared to invest sums of money, we know that they have done the research.

I come back to this point. It is gross negligence of the highest order—frankly, probably of a criminal order—to refuse to even try, and to not even say, “Okay Richard, I disagree with you, but let’s have an independent test over a couple of years at a couple of different sites, using a couple of different techniques.” Surely that would be the middle ground, because in the event that those on my side of the debate are correct and those on the other side of the debate are incorrect, we would then have taken advantage of this great opportunity.

[Wera Hobhouse]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way again just once more?

[Richard Tice]

I am delighted to give way to the hon. Lady.

[Wera Hobhouse]

In the spirit of co-operation, even if we did this test, could he explain the damage and disruption that would be caused to communities in the UK if we tried on the scale that the US has done, where there are vast amounts of empty country with no people disrupted by fracking? Can he explain how that compares and how disruptive it would be for our communities in the UK?

[Richard Tice]

I would be delighted to. The hon. Lady makes an excellent point. There are some 20 million people in the United States who live within 1 mile of fracking pads, shale gas pads or whatever one might wish to call them. I have seen the numerous nodding donkeys—oil drilling wells—in my county of Lincolnshire. You would not know they are there because they are hidden behind trees. Contrary to what some Members have said in the debate, the reality is that once a shale gas well is drilled, you barely know it exists. A well is a couple of metres high and there can be 10 pads on a site that is the size of about two football pitches—behind trees, so no one would even know that they are there.

The misinformation, the false information and the deliberate nonsense being peddled is depriving this great country of the opportunity to reduce our bills. If we carry on as we are, then our bills will be going up and up and up. Indeed, just today, we have heard that the forecast increase in bills for, I think, January will be at least 15%. We should at least have the courage to explore some alternatives.

I need to deal with the whole issue of seismicity—some people call it “earthquakes”—which is a very scary-sounding thing. At the Preston New Road site near Blackpool, there was a limit of just 0.5 on the Richter scale. Now, because the Richter scale is logarithmic, 0.5 is the equivalent of one of the Clerks of the House gently moving their chair backwards and standing up as they leave at the end of the day—that is 0.5. Hon. Members might like to imagine standing up with a melon in their hand, holding it to shoulder height and then dropping it in front of them—that would be about 1.5 on the Richter scale. A bus driving past your house would be in the order of 2.5, which is about the equivalent of the sort of limits applied to construction sites. We need some appropriate context and understanding as to the realities of the situation.

The opportunities here must be worth at least exploring. I fully accept that there are those who have a different view to me on issues around renewables, but we can all agree that diversity can be a wonderful thing—diversity of technologies and sources. Maybe one day—I am 62, Madam Deputy Speaker, so maybe after I am long dead—renewables might be cheaper, but at the moment that is not the evidence. The evidence in the United States is that shale gas is driving bills all the way down.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Chowns]

Yes, seriously. I can give the hon. Member the reference, unlike for the extraordinary statistics he cited in his speech, which apparently have no basis in actual evidence. Fundamentally, we have to stop pouring fossil fuel on the fire of the climate crisis, and that means we need a full ban on fracking.

[Wera Hobhouse]

Is it not true that, in the end, this is a choice? It is not the case that we invest large amounts of public money in the transition to net zero and nothing in the oil and gas industry. Is it not true that our energy bills are subsidised, and that we are subsidising the oil and gas industry? It is therefore a distraction to say, “Renewables are very expensive, so we need to subsidise them, whereas oil and gas are not expensive.” That argument is completely wrong, because we publicly subsidise oil and gas.

[Dr Chowns]

It is indeed true that there is considerable public subsidy for oil and gas, as well as revenues from the windfall taxes. As the hon. Member for Alloa and Grangemouth pointed out, the fossil fuel companies are making tens of billions of pounds in profit, which is raked in from consumers.

Fundamentally, renewables are the cheap, clean, green energy of the future, and we need to shift in that direction as quickly as possible. We are here talking about fracking, but there is no commercially viable shale gas reserve in the entirety of the UK.

--- Later in debate ---

[Harriet Cross]

As I have said, private companies will invest where they see opportunities. They will risk their money how they want, and it is up to them to either gain or lose in the investments that they make.

A secure domestic supply of gas is a crucial consideration when it comes to our energy security. I want to see the UK safeguarded with a domestic supply of gas, which we use and need every day. However, there is a viable gas source that does not need onshore fracking, a source that has been producing in the North sea and safely entering our gas grid for decades. Today we are discussing whether fracking should be banned, but we should be more concerned about the Government’s hostile policies when it comes to North sea oil and gas production.

Let us take Jackdaw, a gasfield that could produce enough gas to power 1.4 million homes in the UK this winter—about 6% of our gas needs. Those who are worried about onshore fracking should reflect on the fact that there is a choice here, because they cannot be against all sources of gas. Would they prefer gas from Jackdaw or another North sea gasfield, gas from onshore fracked resources, or imports of liquefied natural gas? The option is not “no gas”; it is just a question of where the gas comes from.

[Wera Hobhouse]

Is it not true that delaying the transition—the hon. Lady does not want to accept a delay until 2050, but whatever the delay may be—will make energy more expensive for our citizens? Is it therefore not highly irresponsible to delay something that we need when it will cost our citizens more in the long term?

Oral Answers to Questions

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

Tuesday 7th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Michael Shanks]

That sounds like a great project, and I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend, as I would anyone across the House who has exciting community energy projects in their area. The local power plan partly deals with investment, but it also deals with those questions of how we get regulation right so that communities can sell power locally and make a return that they can keep in their community.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

The Energy Security and Net Zero Committee report on community energy, which I am sure the Minister has read, has raised concerns that community energy projects are at risk of being left behind unless there is clear guidance from the Government on how and when the necessary reforms will be implemented. Will the energy independence Bill establish a workable model so that community energy will be delivered as soon as possible?

[Michael Shanks]

I love all the work that the hon. Member has been doing on community energy; I am tempted to say that we were going to do it anyway, but it was great to have the report on my bedside cabinet to read as well. Giving guidance and making reforms are exactly what we need to do; it is about making it much easier for communities to sell power to the market and hold on to the profits that they make from that. We will legislate to take that forward in the energy independence Bill. There are a number of other things that we are taking forward, but investment in those community energy projects is critical. I would encourage her to speak to the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne) and make clear that £1 billion through GB Energy to make it happen does matter.

Climate Change

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

Wednesday 24th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Pippa Heylings]

Like the hon. Member, I regularly meet young people across my constituency. I find it hard to look my children and children in my constituency and beyond in the eye, because that is one of the things they talk about the most. I challenge any MP in this Chamber to say that they do not receive those emails or have those meetings in schools where this issue is brought up. I feel that responsibility deeply, and I believe that that feeling is shared across the majority of those in this Chamber.

Without action, we risk handing our children and the next generation a Britain where extreme heat regularly keeps children out of classrooms. Did we not learn from covid, during which the more disadvantaged were left behind because they were told to go home? They did not have large homes, cool gardens or broadband, and that is happening yet again this week. We will have a Britain in which thousands die prematurely each summer and in which water scarcity, with a deficit of 5 billion litres a day of public water, is a reality. In my constituency of South Cambridgeshire, which is one of the most water-stressed in the country, this issue is affecting growth right now, so we know how critical it is.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

We should add that water shortages are a real cause of conflict. Many communities will be displaced. Anybody who is worried about migration now should be deeply worried about migration in the future, because people will simply be displaced—

[Richard Tice]

Shut the borders!

[Wera Hobhouse]

They will come, and you will shut the borders, but we will have wars over water shortages. We absolutely will. It sounds alarmist, but we can do something about it. We should not put our heads in the sand. Does my hon. Friend agree?

[Pippa Heylings]

I thank my hon. Friend, as always, for her passionate defence and her knowledge on this issue. I worked for 20 years in east Africa, southern America and the Caribbean on UK climate policy, including under the previous Conservative Government. I saw countries already facing water shortages and what that meant: devastating crops and economies, and putting countries into recurrent economic recession. We must be committed to net zero emissions by 2050 because the science when the former Government agreed this—

Climate Change

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

Thursday 19th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

The UK has a lot to be proud of in our record on climate change, such as halving our greenhouse gas emissions since 1990, being the first EU nation to phase out coal, and massively scaling up renewable energy. It is no coincidence that many of these accomplishments came against a background of cross-party consensus on the need to reach net zero.

The parties used to compete to have the most ambitious environmental programme, but since the last election the Conservatives have abandoned our ambitious climate commitments. Instead, they have kowtowed to the politics of fear, and seized on net zero in a culture war of trying to out-Reform Reform—and where are the Reform Members? Even while still in government, the Conservatives squandered some of the huge economic, social and environmental opportunities of net zero, and now they are falling even further behind the curve. Their recent decision to call for the Climate Change Act to be scrapped would critically endanger future generations, who deserve a safer planet, energy security and a stronger economy. The Climate Change Committee frequently warned that the last Government were not moving fast enough. Let us not forget that they were defeated twice in the High Court due to their inadequate climate plans.

We Liberal Democrats recognise the urgent need to go further and faster on climate change. This generation should be the first to leave the country and the world in a better condition than we found them in. We also recognise the huge opportunities that new renewable energy brings to support skilled jobs and economic growth. Previous failure to invest sufficiently in renewable energy and insulate our homes has led directly to the energy crisis, pushing up energy bills for everyone and squeezing family finances. The situation in Iran has laid bare the state of UK energy security as prices have shot up because we are so reliant on oil and gas. Home-grown, renewable energy does not have to pass through the strait of Hormuz, and its price is not set on the rollercoaster of international markets.

Conservative and Reform Members have their heads in the sand in adopting anti-renewable, anti-environmental policies that would leave us vulnerable to more energy crises in the future. The Climate Change Committee has found that the cost of net zero by 2050 is less than the impact of one fuel crisis. Conservative and Reform Members would have us believe that we cannot afford net zero. In reality, the truth is that we cannot afford not to get to net zero.

We cannot escape the fact that our electricity prices are among the highest in Europe, but that is not inevitable; it is the result of a pricing imbalance. Right now, the cost of electricity is set by the price of gas 97% of the time, even though half of our electricity comes from renewables, which are much cheaper. That disconnect is driving up bills unnecessarily, and we must break that link. We Liberal Democrats propose the practical solution of moving older renewable projects off expensive renewable obligation certificates and on to cheaper contracts for difference. The UK Energy Research Centre estimates that that change alone would save a typical household about £200 a year.

At the same time, the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee’s inquiry into the cost of energy has uncovered serious concerns about transparency. We have heard evidence that profits can be obscured within network charges on energy bills. Energy companies must be transparent, so consumers can clearly see what they are paying for and where profits are being made. Our constituents deserve energy bills to be fair, affordable and easy to understand.

In Bath, the majority of my constituents are firmly behind climate action, and so is my Liberal Democrat council. I was delighted to hold a pop-up surgery at Bath climate hub last week. The hub supports people to reduce their carbon footprint through diet, energy use or transportation changes. It also facilitates the meaningful conversation that we must keep having on climate issues. From action to rewild nature-depleted land to community owned energy initiatives, local areas in Bath are making changes that together make a big difference.

In Bath, like the rest of the country, retrofitting our homes through a national insulation programme is crucial to lowering carbon emissions and reducing bills. The Government’s warm homes plan unfortunately falls short of the scale, ambition and long-term certainty we need. An emergency home upgrade programme should have been implemented in the first 100 days of this Government. We Liberal Democrats would upgrade our homes, making them cheaper to heat with a 10-year emergency home upgrade programme, starting with free insulation for those on low incomes and ensuring that all new homes are zero-carbon. We would also provide further incentives for installing heat pumps that cover the real cost. That would reduce emissions and bills, combating both climate change and fuel poverty.

Climate change is, after all, a global issue. We must bring others with us. The UK and European partners must lead the global effort to tackle climate change together, even more so given that the US has abandoned the multilateral approach to international climate policy. One choice the Government could take immediately to help global efforts towards net zero would be to reverse the cut to the aid budget and set out a road map for restoring official development assistance to 0.7% of gross national income. UK aid provides vital support for the most vulnerable people in the world and is a key tool in meeting our climate commitments.

We Liberal Democrats have also pushed for a long time for stronger marine environmental targets, both internationally and domestically. We welcome the Government’s decision to ratify the global oceans treaty through legislation. However, much more needs to be done to work with our coastal and fishing communities to ensure a sustainable future for fishing and our marine environment.

Public support for climate action remains strong across the UK, but we cannot take it for granted. We must continue to bring the public with us throughout the energy transition. A part of that is ensuring that misinformation and disinformation is effectively challenged. That means tackling myths about renewable energy head-on, and making sure that households right across the country actually feel the benefits through lower bills, warmer homes and secure jobs in their communities.

The Conservatives and Reform are all too often happy to talk down Britain’s renewable industries. They would have us scraping the bottom of the North sea oil barrel. In doing so, they overlook the remarkable innovation happening right here in the UK: home-grown green technology companies driving growth, creating skilled jobs and shaping a more sustainable future. Even if more oil was extracted from the North sea, it would be sold on the international market at international prices. That would not lower energy bills. The Conservatives know that, so it is particularly callous to ask for something that would leave our constituents less safe and secure economically.

Our constituents want to tackle climate change. They want lower fuel bills. They want their wildlife and landscapes to be protected. They want a strong economy that supports British jobs. That is what the energy transition must give them. We Liberal Democrats will keep making the case for the urgent transition away from fossil fuels.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Harriet Cross]

I will not skip forward a few pages of my speech now, but we will touch on that matter in the coming few minutes.

As I said, the things that we have done are notable. Between 2010 and 2019, the UK Government oversaw the planting of 15 million trees, and during our time in office, the UK was home to the first, second, third, fourth and fifth largest wind farms in the world. We—the UK—have done a lot, and yet the climate is still changing. That is not because there has not been enough ambition or enough action from the UK, and it is not because of a need to just go faster. It is because, first—and I know there will be wails about this—the UK contributes less than 1% of global emissions; and secondly, other countries have not been following our lead.

[Wera Hobhouse]

Is the shadow Minister saying that because we cannot make a big enough impact globally, we should scrap our impact altogether?

[Harriet Cross]

No, that is not what I am saying. I am saying that we have made huge progress and yet others have not been following our lead, so why would we make our industry less competitive? Why would we ensure that investment goes down in our country just to virtue signal and for no one to follow?

We will look at what is happening today. To be very clear—I think this needs saying—disagreeing with the Energy Secretary’s approach to energy policy, and questioning the speed and cost of moving towards renewable energy, does not make one a climate change denier. That is tedious; it is a lazy argument made by those who want to close down the debate—those who believe that decarbonisation must always be the No. 1 priority, at the cost of all else. That is the inherent problem with the current debate on climate change and carbon emissions. It has become a pursuit of what is perceived to be the perfect response—the purist approach to the climate—over what is pragmatic and what is practical. It does not prioritise the public, prices, industry or energy security.

--- Later in debate ---

[Harriet Cross]

The hon. Gentleman is obviously keen to hear from me, which is great, but as he says, I am four minutes in and have taken three interventions; I think I still have a couple of minutes to form my argument.

I will first consider electricity. Our electricity is some of the cleanest in the world, but it is also some of the most expensive, and that is the issue. Making electricity the cheapest option will make it the preferred option. Making electricity cheap will encourage the adoption of electric vehicles and the electrification of home heating, and it will make the UK more attractive for businesses and for growth markets like AI. Cheap electricity will improve the cost of living for households across the country. That is why the Conservatives have a cheap power plan, which would cut electricity bills by 20% for everyone—for households and for businesses. And how? By cutting the carbon tax, which is a tax that makes up a third of the price of our electricity.

But of course, as Members know, electricity only makes up about 20% of our energy mix. Oil and gas—at over 70% of that mix—remain central to our energy needs, and will for a long time. The Climate Change Committee’s projections include oil and gas in its 2050 net zero scenario. So why are the Government banning new licences for the North sea? Why are they taxing companies to such an extent that they pack up and leave? Climate change is a global concern, and therefore global carbon emissions must be considered. Why is the Secretary of State determined to run down our oil and gas production just to increase imports, which are four times more carbon-intensive than what is produced in the North sea? LNG imports have to be extracted, liquefied, shipped and re-gasified, rather than just being piped from the North sea directly into our gas grid.

Permitting Rosebank, Jackdaw and, down the line, Cambo will mean that the UK’s emissions from oil and gas, which we will be using in any case, will be lower—lower than if those reserves are left in the ground and instead we use more carbon-intensive imports. Based on science, emissions and the fact that oil and gas will still be needed in the UK for decades, no one can reasonably argue that replacing domestic North sea oil and gas production with imports is the right course of action. It is not—not for jobs, investment, growth, energy security or emissions.

[Wera Hobhouse]

Does the hon. Lady not recognise that all that might make it cheaper for the oil and gas industry, but it will not make it cheaper for our constituents? Their bills will be the same wherever the gas is extracted; it is the oil and gas industry that might profit from it being extracted elsewhere.

[Harriet Cross]

I do not know whether there has been a misunderstanding of the title of the debate—it is on climate change, not the costs of bills. For climate change, we are looking at emissions; if we are focusing on emissions, we are focusing on where the carbon is produced. There is less carbon intensity in our domestic oil and gas than in imported oil and gas. I know that is not the message that the hon. Lady or others want to hear, but those are the facts.

Being wedded to domestic emissions targets while ignoring emissions produced elsewhere is causing the deindustrialisation we are seeing across the UK. Businesses in ceramics, refining, petrochemicals, oil and gas and many more industries are packing up and leaving the UK, not because their products are needed less, but because they are unable to sustain themselves here under the weight of industrial energy prices and carbon taxes.

Energy Markets

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

Thursday 5th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Ed Miliband]

I agree with the first part of my hon. Friend’s question, so I will take the last part on marginal pricing, as that is the challenge, and be as brief as I can. I completely understand the logic of his question. One of the benefits of a clean power system is that gas will set the price much less of the time. One of the benefits of moving from the renewables obligation to contracts for difference is that it gives us a fixed price that is not subject to the marginal price of gas. I am sympathetic to the principle that my hon. Friend espouses, but the truth is that there are significant obstacles to getting to what he wants to see in a timely way and a way that is better for bill payers. Among all the other things, my Department continues to look at that.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

The Energy Security and Net Zero Committee is running an inquiry into the costs of energy, as we have already heard from its Chair. With all due respect, I cannot understand how the Conservative Opposition can with a straight face deplore the cost of energy for bill payers while at the same time advocate prolonging our dependency on oil and gas. That is precisely what keeps our energy bills high.

Let me come back to our inquiry. We heard from one of the witnesses from E3G that there could be costs of up to £500 per household in hidden profits due to the untransparent network charges put on to energy bills. Will the Government ensure that bill payers are given a full picture of the breakdown of profits across the energy sector?

[Ed Miliband]

I thank the hon. Lady for the point that she makes. It is worth saying that Lord Browne of Madingley, formerly of BP, was on the radio yesterday making precisely the same point that she and I have made. This is a man who used to run one of the world’s largest oil and gas companies, and he said that the lesson of this crisis is that we have to get on to clean power.

On the hon. Lady’s point about networks, it is important to be transparent about that. It is also important to bear down on those costs, and I obviously discuss that a lot with the regulator.

Oral Answers to Questions

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

Tuesday 10th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Ed Miliband]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. I congratulate the scout group. The Minister for Energy promises that he will visit, and that is now on the record in Hansard.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

T5. The environmental impact assessment for the Rosebank oil field shows that its emissions will be enormous—equivalent to 70% of the UK’s annual total emissions. However, the developer claims that the environmental impact is not significant. The Minister may not wish to comment on Rosebank specifically, but will he set out clearly how climate and environmental impacts are weighted in decisions of this kind, and not written off as insignificant?

[Michael Shanks]

The hon. Lady will not be disappointed because, as she said in her question, I will not comment on the application. However, we set out clearly in response to the Finch ruling how scope 3 emissions will be taken into account. That process is now under way, and I cannot comment on those applications.

Local Power Plan

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

Tuesday 10th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Ed Miliband]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question. Briefly, there are three important aspects to this: first, communities can have lower bills for their community centres and local institutions; secondly, they can generate a stream of income by selling power back to the grid; thirdly, there is something wider, and perhaps more intangible, which is the matter of giving local communities a sense of stake in the system. I think this is really important, because one of the ways that we gain consent from people is through the sense that it is not simply the big multinationals that will own our energy system, but local people themselves.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

I welcome the publication of the local power plan and I honestly recognise the Government’s commitment to community energy. However, I think there is still a piece missing—namely that properties in the vicinity of a community energy generator can ultimately benefit by being directly supplied, rather than being supplied through a third party. Will the Secretary of State look again at how community energy is defined and include households benefiting from the energy generated within that community? We have been struggling with the definition of community energy on the Select Committee. I think it is important that households can benefit from the energy generated within the community.

[Ed Miliband]

I thank the hon. Lady for her advocacy on this issue. My hon. Friend the Minister for Energy, who is the world expert on these questions—or at least the UK expert; I will not push it too far—assures me that her important question about the statutory definition, which is, I think, on code P441, is being answered in the plan.

Oral Answers to Questions

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

Tuesday 6th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Ed Miliband]

My hon. Friend is right. The figures that came out from NESO over Christmas show that we had extra renewable power in 2025 equivalent to powering 2 million homes; that is 2 million homes that will not be powered by imported gas. That gives us the price stability that we never had under the previous Government. The fundamental lesson at a time of geopolitical instability is that home-grown clean power is what gives us the certainty we need.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

According to Government figures, output from new solar projects costs around £41 per megawatt-hour compared with roughly £140 per megawatt-hour for the lifespan costs of new gas power. I know the Secretary of State agrees with me and RenewableUK that clean energy remains the energy with the lowest cost, but how do we ensure that the British public agree with us?

Energy

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

Wednesday 12th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Claire Coutinho]

I thank the Chair of the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee for his time and willingness in going through the plan. Costs were not always so high; we actually had the lowest gas prices before the crisis, and we had lower electricity prices as well. What has happened is that we have switched a lot of costs into fixed costs, and those costs are increasing. It is something everybody is looking at, from the Tony Blair Institute to the trade unions—people right across the political spectrum. We need to address this issue because there is a huge amount on the line, whether that is growth or living standards. As I have said, AI is here in the near term; we cannot wait until the 2040s, which is the Government’s plan. Even then, it is not clear that their plan would bring down bills at all.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

Is it not the truth that the reason energy bills are still so high is because we still produce a lot of electricity by burning gas? Burning gas, which is sold on the global market, keeps energy prices high. That is the main problem. We need to decouple electricity from gas prices, and particularly to get away from gas.

[Claire Coutinho]

As the Chair of the Select Committee was happy to spend some time with me on this, I hope that the hon. Lady would be too, because she might learn something. Some 40% of our electricity prices are wholesale prices, while 60% are fixed costs, which covers things like building out the networks, which is going up phenomenally under the Government’s plans, as even Ofgem has pointed out; it also covers switching off wind farms when it gets too windy, which we spent £1 billion on this year, and will spend £8 billion on in 2030. I urge the hon. Lady to go and look at the numbers.

Our imports of foreign gas, which has four times the emissions of British gas, have soared because of what the Government are doing to the North sea; they were up 40% year on year at the beginning of this year. When the unions, the chief executive of Octopus and even the chair of Great British Energy have said that we should keep drilling in the North sea, do Government Members not wonder whether their Secretary of State has got this wrong?

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Bowie]

Yes, and I recommend he looks at my website because everybody else in the Chamber seems to have done so by now.

[Wera Hobhouse]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Andrew Bowie]

I will do so one last time and then I really need to make progress.

[Wera Hobhouse]

I am interested in hearing what he has to say about cutting bills. Does he not recognise that the cost of letting climate change go on unmitigated is a vast one for every household in this country?

[Andrew Bowie]

I remind the hon. Lady that, as she well knows, we cut our carbon emissions faster than any other developed nation on Earth and yet global warming is increasing. We need to encourage other countries to reduce their emissions, but we do not do that on the backs of British bill payers, who pay far too much for their energy. I thought the Liberal Democrats would be supportive of creating jobs and reducing bills and the burden on British people, but obviously they are not.

The Government’s policies have seen imports soar as a direct result. Those policies have been described as “naive” by the GMB; “incorrect” by the American ambassador; they will make Britain increasingly dependent, according to the Norwegian Government; they need replaced, says Scottish Renewables; and they lead to a “haemorrhaging” of energy jobs, according to none other than the head of Great British Energy, Juergen Maier. In fact, the only person who seems to think that this is a good way to manage our energy industry is the Energy Secretary.

This Government are sacrificing an industry and livelihoods, communities and prosperity on this mission, many of them in my constituency. The irony is not lost in the north-east of Scotland. We import more gas from abroad, from the very same sea that we are prevented from exploiting ourselves, and at a higher carbon footprint, while workers in Aberdeen and across the north-east of Scotland and the domestic supply chain across the United Kingdom see their jobs disappear. Aberdonians are incredibly proud of the fact that an Aberdonian accent can be found in every oil-rich nation on earth. Soon, the only place we will not find a Scottish oil and gas worker is in Aberdeen itself. One thousand jobs are set to be lost every month as a direct result of the policies of this Labour Government, because those people are leaving. They are off to the middle east, Australia, the far east, South America, Mexico, the USA and Canada—in fact, they are off to anywhere the British Labour party is not in charge of energy policy.

This successful industry is enduring a politically manufactured decline, made in Whitehall and devastating livelihoods across the UK and particularly in Scotland. This Government are demonstrating a reckless disregard for the industry, which for decades has kept the lights on in this country; an industry that we will continue to need for decades to come.

The oil and gas industry has been through challenging waters before. The 2014-15 global downturn and oil price collapse saw a contraction in operations and job losses. Yet the response could not be more different. In 2015, the Conservative Government commissioned the Wood review and initiated a policy of maximum economic recovery from the North sea. We recognised the value of the domestic industry and acted accordingly.

Our oil and gas industry is facing tough times again, but this time the downturn is only in the UK. Globally, the energy industry is booming. In the UAE and Saudi Arabia, the gulf of America, South America and Norway, activity is increasing, and New Zealand has just overturned the ban on drilling brought in by its previous Labour Government. The difficulties experienced in our domestic industry are the result of political decisions driven by ideology over pragmatism.

I very much hope the Chancellor is listening to us on these Benches, and to the workers in the oil and gas industry, their unions, the businesses, the Americans, the Norwegians, the renewables industry and even Juergen Maier, because we are at a critical turning point. The industry stands on a precipice. The Chancellor must act now. If she does not act now, at this Budget, the UK will not have a domestic oil and gas industry left to salvage. The real irony is that the Secretary of State, in his vitriol and zealotry, is jeopardising the future of renewable energy in the North sea. As the Port of Aberdeen CEO said this week as he announced further job losses, our energy sector risks being “stranded” in limbo between the destruction of our oil and gas industry and a nascent renewables sector. Also this week, we saw Shell divest from offshore wind projects. The Government just do not get it. With their scorched earth strategy against our traditional offshore industries, they are decimating a skilled workforce and dismantling a world-leading supply chain. Talent and capital are moving elsewhere.

We need cheap energy, and that means all of the above: nuclear, gas, hydropower and innovative technologies, and renewables if it can be proven that they will cut bills. As this Labour Government rip the floor from beneath the oil and gas industry of today, they will soon realise that they are losing the workforce, the supply chains and the investment of tomorrow, but there is another way: our way. The Government should declare the North sea open for business, reduce our reliance on imports, get rid of the energy profits levy, build more nuclear—big and small—create energy abundance and cut electricity bills for families by 20% right now using our cheap power plan. They could do it but, blinded by ideology, I very much doubt they will.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Shanks]

I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman was able to have another opportunity to speak positively about the Conservative party’s record on renewables when no one else in his party seems to want to talk about that at all.

A number of hon. Members said that the reason we are still subject to the volatility of gas prices is that it still sets the price far too often. The only way that we will bring down prices in the long term is by removing gas as the price setter. That means that we need to build more renewables, but another key point that the Conservatives have missed is that they built lots of those projects while not building the grid to connect them. They talk about constraint payments, but that is the legacy of a party that for 14 years failed to build the grid that would bring significantly cheaper power to homes and businesses across the country.

[Wera Hobhouse]

Is it not the truth that once the projects have been built, the energy is free? There is no commodity concentration, because the wind and sunlight cost nothing; there is very little cost apart from the installation.

[Michael Shanks]

I would say that it is significantly cheaper to generate electricity from renewables, but I might not go quite as far as the hon. Lady does.

There is a false argument that because the wholesale price of gas is cheaper, we should simply rely on gas more. That completely ignores the fact that we have an ageing gas fleet in this country, and would have to build significant numbers of new gas power stations to take advantage of that price. The figure the Conservatives frequently throw around compares the construction costs of renewables with the cost of gas, not the cost of building gas power stations, whereas renewables have extremely cheap ongoing costs in the long run.

Oral Answers to Questions

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

Tuesday 15th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Ed Miliband]

First, I congratulate my hon. Friend on being such a brilliant champion of the port of Tyne and what it offers, and she is right to draw attention to this important issue. Approval of any works to reroute the line is a matter for Ofgem, but we stand ready to engage with her and, indeed, Ofgem to try to bring this forward. I suggest that my hon. Friend the Energy Minister meets her to discuss this important issue.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

Despite the growing need for green jobs—obviously, we are all in favour of making sure we have green jobs—fewer than one in 10 employees receive any dedicated green skills training, according to an OVO Energy survey. What can we do to support businesses, and what can the Government do to accelerate that important training programme in all businesses where we need green jobs?

[Ed Miliband]

The hon. Lady raises an important issue. Later this year, we will publish a clean energy skills plan to address precisely this question: how do we make sure we equip workers with the skills they need to take advantage of those jobs? That is being led by my right hon. Friend the Education Secretary in the work she is doing with Skills England, but there is a whole range of things we can do. For the first time, the Government will publish what the skills needs are for clean energy jobs and how we will meet them, which will be an important step forward.